Rovers chief Shaw: FFP rules are 'complete nonsense'

Derek Shaw

Derek Shaw

First published in Sport This Is Lancashire: Photograph of the Author by , Blackburn Rovers reporter

BLACKBURN Rovers managing director Derek Shaw has hit out at the Football League’s Financial Fair Play, branding it ‘complete nonsense’.

But Shaw did not confirm whether Rovers are part of a group of Championship clubs who have reportedly threatened the Football League with legal action if penalties for failing FFP, which come into play next season, are not modified.

The Guardian yesterday reported that Manchester-based law firm Brabners has written to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey on behalf of several Championship clubs and one League One club – all of who were unnamed – objecting to FFP and warning of a potential legal challenge.

Given Rovers are expected to fail FFP it would appear they could be one of the unidentified clubs who have instructed Brabners to act on their behalf.

Shaw, however, would not comment.

But he did label the FFP penalties – which are likely to see the Ewood Park outfit slapped with a transfer embargo if they fail to win promotion this season, or hit with a big fine if they go up to the Premier League – as ‘complete nonsense’.

He added: “There’s been more than 100 years of the Football League and I think they are bringing in the most hideous rule that could cost clubs.”

Should Rovers remain in the Championship next season they will suffer a transfer embargo in January if they do not meet the new fair play rules. That embargo will only be lifted when the club shows its spending has been brought within the FFP limits.

Shaw believes that would be unfair on Rovers if the club’s owners Venky’s are willing to foot the bill for new signings.

Shaw also feels clubs in a similar situation to Rovers but with bigger fan bases and increased revenue streams, have a better chance of falling in line with FFP.

Shaw said: “If you’re up to your limit on your spending and you lose a star player in January to injury, the rules are telling you that you can’t replace him. How can that be right in football?

“And there are clubs in the Championship who get nearly three times our gates so where do you draw a line on Fair Play?”

FFP rules state that Championship clubs can make a maximum loss of £3m for the current 2013-14 campaign. That figure rises to £8m if a club’s owner is willing to convert the additional £5m into shares in the club.

Anything above £3m or £8m will result in a transfer embargo which would come into force on January 1, 2015. Championship clubs that fail to comply with FFP but are promoted to the Premier League this season will be required to pay a ‘Fair Play Tax’ penalty, which scales from one per cent on the first £100,000 overspent to 100 per cent on anything above £10m.

Rovers posted a £36.5m loss for last season and despite a big effort to reduce the club’s wage bill, it remains extremely unlikely they will get their losses for this season down to the £8m limit.

The FFP rules were agreed in April 2012 by the overwhelming majority of Championship clubs.

At that time Rovers were playing in the Premier League and therefore did not have a vote.

Comments (80)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:23am Fri 28 Feb 14

owd nick says...

It's pretty obvious that Rovers are one of the clubs objecting to FFP, I would be surprised if they weren't.

To me it's tantamount to enforcing trade restrictions on companies who wish to invest in the future, that has to be against EU rules.
It's pretty obvious that Rovers are one of the clubs objecting to FFP, I would be surprised if they weren't. To me it's tantamount to enforcing trade restrictions on companies who wish to invest in the future, that has to be against EU rules. owd nick
  • Score: 18

9:38am Fri 28 Feb 14

cboyer says...

i dont understand it all that much but it does seam that the teams that have come down from the premier league will suffer more??
i dont understand it all that much but it does seam that the teams that have come down from the premier league will suffer more?? cboyer
  • Score: 10

9:41am Fri 28 Feb 14

TurfMoorTom says...

I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in) TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 9

9:42am Fri 28 Feb 14

BlueSkies says...

It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me.
Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?'
Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice.
Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.
It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me. Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?' Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice. Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League. BlueSkies
  • Score: 4

9:44am Fri 28 Feb 14

TurfMoorTom says...

Shaw said: “If you’re up to your limit on your spending and you lose a star player in January to injury, the rules are telling you that you can’t replace him. How can that be right in football?

Because Mr Shaw, you would already have made your sustainable investments when preparing for the season ahead. This is YOUR job. Cut your cloth accordingly and speak sense.
Shaw said: “If you’re up to your limit on your spending and you lose a star player in January to injury, the rules are telling you that you can’t replace him. How can that be right in football? Because Mr Shaw, you would already have made your sustainable investments when preparing for the season ahead. This is YOUR job. Cut your cloth accordingly and speak sense. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 14

9:50am Fri 28 Feb 14

TurfMoorTom says...

BlueSkies wrote:
It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me.
Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?'
Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice.
Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.
If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby??
[quote][p][bold]BlueSkies[/bold] wrote: It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me. Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?' Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice. Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.[/p][/quote]If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby?? TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 1

9:55am Fri 28 Feb 14

gb1882 says...

Shaw could always pack up and take rovers with him and go play somewhere else if he doesn't like the rules.

Good news is 21 clubs voted yes 3 clubs voted no. Odd those 3 clubs are the ones they are. Lets hope its just another step in the right direction of that club folding and vanishing for good.
Shaw could always pack up and take rovers with him and go play somewhere else if he doesn't like the rules. Good news is 21 clubs voted yes 3 clubs voted no. Odd those 3 clubs are the ones they are. Lets hope its just another step in the right direction of that club folding and vanishing for good. gb1882
  • Score: 3

9:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh! look.up.blackburn
  • Score: -1

10:08am Fri 28 Feb 14

Itsnotmeyoubellend says...

FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket.
It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules.
FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket. It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules. Itsnotmeyoubellend
  • Score: 4

10:13am Fri 28 Feb 14

BlueSkies says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
BlueSkies wrote:
It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me.
Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?'
Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice.
Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.
If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby??
Football clubs cannot exist without investment and clubs have continually lived beyond their means with the ultimate objective of winning trophies.
Rovers did it, Chelsea and Man City do, as do many others.
Try applying FFP to the latter two and see what happens.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlueSkies[/bold] wrote: It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me. Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?' Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice. Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.[/p][/quote]If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby??[/p][/quote]Football clubs cannot exist without investment and clubs have continually lived beyond their means with the ultimate objective of winning trophies. Rovers did it, Chelsea and Man City do, as do many others. Try applying FFP to the latter two and see what happens. BlueSkies
  • Score: 2

10:19am Fri 28 Feb 14

jack01 says...

The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt
on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing? jack01
  • Score: 12

10:28am Fri 28 Feb 14

gb1882 says...

Good to see jack bringing last years news today.

keep up old boy


Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold.
Good to see jack bringing last years news today. keep up old boy Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold. gb1882
  • Score: -3

10:32am Fri 28 Feb 14

jack01 says...

Its not really a jibe. Its reality that Burnley are getting gates of 10,000-12,000 at home, even during a spectacular season. Sums up your understanding of these proposed rules if you think that its going to help you when you're up against the likes of Derby, Forest, Leeds on 25,000 a week and you have no benefactor to 'make up the shortfall'.

It will dawn on you eventually.
Its not really a jibe. Its reality that Burnley are getting gates of 10,000-12,000 at home, even during a spectacular season. Sums up your understanding of these proposed rules if you think that its going to help you when you're up against the likes of Derby, Forest, Leeds on 25,000 a week and you have no benefactor to 'make up the shortfall'. It will dawn on you eventually. jack01
  • Score: 11

10:33am Fri 28 Feb 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

Ubelievable arrogance from Shaw and all at Rovers.

21 clubs voted in favour of these rules.If the 3 clubs (Leicester, Blackburn and QPR apparently) that didn't do not want to play along with them they should go and play in some other leagues and take their massive debts with them...
The 21 clubs in the Championship and the rest of the football league that are trying to abide by these rules are not going to lay down and let the minority have it all their own way, because if they do get the rules changed there will be 21 taking on the football league and not just 4...
The rule is there to help clubs live within their means and Shaw is just a tool.
Ubelievable arrogance from Shaw and all at Rovers. 21 clubs voted in favour of these rules.If the 3 clubs (Leicester, Blackburn and QPR apparently) that didn't do not want to play along with them they should go and play in some other leagues and take their massive debts with them... The 21 clubs in the Championship and the rest of the football league that are trying to abide by these rules are not going to lay down and let the minority have it all their own way, because if they do get the rules changed there will be 21 taking on the football league and not just 4... The rule is there to help clubs live within their means and Shaw is just a tool. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 2

10:35am Fri 28 Feb 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

gb1882 wrote:
Good to see jack bringing last years news today.

keep up old boy


Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold.
Yes but Blackburn signed up to be a part of the Football League, and by doing that agreed to abide by it's rules and regulations.

If you don't like it then I hope the football league either withdraw your Football League golden share or deduct a point per million of pound overspend.
[quote][p][bold]gb1882[/bold] wrote: Good to see jack bringing last years news today. keep up old boy Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold.[/p][/quote]Yes but Blackburn signed up to be a part of the Football League, and by doing that agreed to abide by it's rules and regulations. If you don't like it then I hope the football league either withdraw your Football League golden share or deduct a point per million of pound overspend. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 0

10:51am Fri 28 Feb 14

jinkyjase says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
Jack didn't 'plant the seed' Sky did. Thankfully Jack saw what was coming and bank rolled Rovers to be a part of it. If you knew anything, you'd know that.
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]Jack didn't 'plant the seed' Sky did. Thankfully Jack saw what was coming and bank rolled Rovers to be a part of it. If you knew anything, you'd know that. jinkyjase
  • Score: 8

10:57am Fri 28 Feb 14

gb1882 says...

Thats the thing though jack..

I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports.

You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team.

Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most.
Thats the thing though jack.. I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports. You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team. Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most. gb1882
  • Score: 2

10:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

SteppBladder says...

Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.
Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”. SteppBladder
  • Score: 2

11:14am Fri 28 Feb 14

A Darener says...

I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity.
And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish.
I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity. And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish. A Darener
  • Score: 2

11:18am Fri 28 Feb 14

RobH2O says...

SteppBladder wrote:
Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.
I am a Burnley fan. I am not a troll - unless pursuing Dingle Dangle. I am one of a band, huge in number, of Burnley fans who take this matter very seriously indeed.

FFP is reasonable. The limits of £3m - to £8m do seem arbitrary. No rationale has been offered as to the reasons for the choice.

If we are not promoted, we will have to live within a c13,000 home-crowd footprint. That's merchandise and gate receipts. We also have commercial income. In the log-term, unless you can actually manage a club on the field and off, with flair prudence and imagination, the conference beckons for any club sitting of a 70-80,000 population footprint. Only the giant clubs will emerge because if they apply the same management excellence, allied to the greater resources, they must prevail.

Blackburn are effectively in the same predicament, maybe a touch worse, How this is going to open out in the short term is difficult to call. The longer term is fa easier to call - larger clubs dominating with the gap to the next tier being even greater than today.
[quote][p][bold]SteppBladder[/bold] wrote: Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.[/p][/quote]I am a Burnley fan. I am not a troll - unless pursuing Dingle Dangle. I am one of a band, huge in number, of Burnley fans who take this matter very seriously indeed. FFP is reasonable. The limits of £3m - to £8m do seem arbitrary. No rationale has been offered as to the reasons for the choice. If we are not promoted, we will have to live within a c13,000 home-crowd footprint. That's merchandise and gate receipts. We also have commercial income. In the log-term, unless you can actually manage a club on the field and off, with flair prudence and imagination, the conference beckons for any club sitting of a 70-80,000 population footprint. Only the giant clubs will emerge because if they apply the same management excellence, allied to the greater resources, they must prevail. Blackburn are effectively in the same predicament, maybe a touch worse, How this is going to open out in the short term is difficult to call. The longer term is fa easier to call - larger clubs dominating with the gap to the next tier being even greater than today. RobH2O
  • Score: 10

11:22am Fri 28 Feb 14

jack01 says...

gb1882 wrote:
Thats the thing though jack..

I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports.

You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team.

Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most.
It doesn't matter what supporters 'want'. Lots of things happen that you might not agree with. Clubs have run up debts since the start of time and like it or not that is the responsibility of their owners. The Football League didn't seem to bothered about clubs' welfare when Luton and Portsmouth were going to the wall or when they sanctioned the destruction of Wimbledon. Its about what is right in keeping with competition laws and treating all clubs equally. Why should Leeds be allowed to spend more than Blackburn just because they get more supporters through the gates when Venkys are prepared to spend the money to enable them to compete? If somebody wants to buy a club and spend money on it that's their choice and in the vast majority of cases has been beneficial to English football.

The point about it being harder to compete is simply unacceptable. The whole basis of the football league is that all clubs should be treated equally by the rules. These rules conveniently overlook this and directly benefit those clubs based in cities or with traditionally bigger profiles or support. These clubs can draw on 20,000 a week regardless and have greater access to sponsorship/corporat
e sales.

The prime example of this is Sky Sports, who have just announced Leeds' 13th live broadcast game for the season. If you say its £100,000 a broadcast x 13 = £1,300,000 going straight into Leeds' coffers, which will all help when it comes to FFP. In contrast Rovers have been broadcast 3 times, so will only get £300,000 from Sky. So there's a million pounds that previously could have been cancelled out by Venkys putting the money in, that in future can't happen. How can that be right?

Thanks to these rules these clubs will now be able to offer bigger wages and spend more than your town clubs with 15,000 a week gates and will be protected by law. In the past rich owners have enabled the smaller clubs to compete with the bigger clubs despite having less supporters or sponsors. Not any more. If you think that's right or in any way good for the competition then more fool you.

Rovers are not alone in having some players on 'Premiership wages'. Look at QPR, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Wigan, Reading for others. Rovers are paying Premier League wages because they were in the Premier League for 10 years. What were they supposed to do, NOT pay Premier League wages? And therefore jeopardise their status?

Rovers weren't the first club to 'chuck crazy money at football'. If you knew anything you would know that Rovers spent less than Man Utd and Liverpool when Jack Walker was at the club. So that's that myth put to bed. You also presumably think that Bob Lord's cash had nothing to do with Burnley's 1960 title win?
[quote][p][bold]gb1882[/bold] wrote: Thats the thing though jack.. I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports. You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team. Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what supporters 'want'. Lots of things happen that you might not agree with. Clubs have run up debts since the start of time and like it or not that is the responsibility of their owners. The Football League didn't seem to bothered about clubs' welfare when Luton and Portsmouth were going to the wall or when they sanctioned the destruction of Wimbledon. Its about what is right in keeping with competition laws and treating all clubs equally. Why should Leeds be allowed to spend more than Blackburn just because they get more supporters through the gates when Venkys are prepared to spend the money to enable them to compete? If somebody wants to buy a club and spend money on it that's their choice and in the vast majority of cases has been beneficial to English football. The point about it being harder to compete is simply unacceptable. The whole basis of the football league is that all clubs should be treated equally by the rules. These rules conveniently overlook this and directly benefit those clubs based in cities or with traditionally bigger profiles or support. These clubs can draw on 20,000 a week regardless and have greater access to sponsorship/corporat e sales. The prime example of this is Sky Sports, who have just announced Leeds' 13th live broadcast game for the season. If you say its £100,000 a broadcast x 13 = £1,300,000 going straight into Leeds' coffers, which will all help when it comes to FFP. In contrast Rovers have been broadcast 3 times, so will only get £300,000 from Sky. So there's a million pounds that previously could have been cancelled out by Venkys putting the money in, that in future can't happen. How can that be right? Thanks to these rules these clubs will now be able to offer bigger wages and spend more than your town clubs with 15,000 a week gates and will be protected by law. In the past rich owners have enabled the smaller clubs to compete with the bigger clubs despite having less supporters or sponsors. Not any more. If you think that's right or in any way good for the competition then more fool you. Rovers are not alone in having some players on 'Premiership wages'. Look at QPR, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Wigan, Reading for others. Rovers are paying Premier League wages because they were in the Premier League for 10 years. What were they supposed to do, NOT pay Premier League wages? And therefore jeopardise their status? Rovers weren't the first club to 'chuck crazy money at football'. If you knew anything you would know that Rovers spent less than Man Utd and Liverpool when Jack Walker was at the club. So that's that myth put to bed. You also presumably think that Bob Lord's cash had nothing to do with Burnley's 1960 title win? jack01
  • Score: 7

11:24am Fri 28 Feb 14

BelTower says...

All rules are "complete nonsense" when you are incapable of sticking to them. But unfortunately that's life.
All rules are "complete nonsense" when you are incapable of sticking to them. But unfortunately that's life. BelTower
  • Score: -2

11:27am Fri 28 Feb 14

RobH2O says...

A Darener wrote:
I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity.
And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish.
Good morning Darener. I do hope you'll forgive me when I write that I utterly disagree with the statement "a company owners should be able to spend their money as they wish (sic)". I do not think that a rich person/enterprise should be allowed to parachute money into a football club (as a loan or as a capital injection that purchases shares) so that the club can by players and pay them wages greater than the (at the time) current income levels of the club would allow. This creates a distortion we all have to live with later down the line. Players transfer fees then start to inflate and, unless the recapitalisation level occurs in every club, those that don't/can't fall behind and never catch up.

Jack Walker is a prime example. Please don't get me wrong on this. He was a first class bloke by all accounts, a dedicated and utterly genuine Rovers fan and a man of his word. He did not set out with "malice aforethought" to muck up football; not by any means. But the ripple that his pebble caused in the pond is now a tsunami with FFP designed to act as the barrier. Sadly, it won't work as you say. So we have to devise something else. A US style players draft perhaps? Its a tough one.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity. And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish.[/p][/quote]Good morning Darener. I do hope you'll forgive me when I write that I utterly disagree with the statement "a company owners should be able to spend their money as they wish (sic)". I do not think that a rich person/enterprise should be allowed to parachute money into a football club (as a loan or as a capital injection that purchases shares) so that the club can by players and pay them wages greater than the (at the time) current income levels of the club would allow. This creates a distortion we all have to live with later down the line. Players transfer fees then start to inflate and, unless the recapitalisation level occurs in every club, those that don't/can't fall behind and never catch up. Jack Walker is a prime example. Please don't get me wrong on this. He was a first class bloke by all accounts, a dedicated and utterly genuine Rovers fan and a man of his word. He did not set out with "malice aforethought" to muck up football; not by any means. But the ripple that his pebble caused in the pond is now a tsunami with FFP designed to act as the barrier. Sadly, it won't work as you say. So we have to devise something else. A US style players draft perhaps? Its a tough one. RobH2O
  • Score: 3

11:30am Fri 28 Feb 14

Iiii1111 says...

jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt

on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
Agree with most of that jack apart from the first paragraph......

..."The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory."


The point that you seem to miss is that the Football League allows businesses ie BRFC to ply its trade in one of their leagues ...all these leagues have members ( individual clubs) that have input into rules, if Rovers don't want to abide by these rules, either don't break them or try to change them via the fair system that is currently in place were all clubs have a vote......I'm absolutely sure if Rovers decided to set up an independent league and leave the Football League with the Lunes from Prune dictating the rules of the new League then no embargo would be placed on them!
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]Agree with most of that jack apart from the first paragraph...... ..."The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory." The point that you seem to miss is that the Football League allows businesses ie BRFC to ply its trade in one of their leagues ...all these leagues have members ( individual clubs) that have input into rules, if Rovers don't want to abide by these rules, either don't break them or try to change them via the fair system that is currently in place were all clubs have a vote......I'm absolutely sure if Rovers decided to set up an independent league and leave the Football League with the Lunes from Prune dictating the rules of the new League then no embargo would be placed on them! Iiii1111
  • Score: 1

11:32am Fri 28 Feb 14

A Darener says...

Jack01.....brilliant
ly put! Well written piece, agree with everything you have written. Perhaps what is required is for proper football supporters to make their views known to the powers that be! This Unfair FFP must be defeated.
Jack01.....brilliant ly put! Well written piece, agree with everything you have written. Perhaps what is required is for proper football supporters to make their views known to the powers that be! This Unfair FFP must be defeated. A Darener
  • Score: -1

11:34am Fri 28 Feb 14

RobH2O says...

jack01 wrote:
gb1882 wrote:
Thats the thing though jack..

I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports.

You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team.

Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most.
It doesn't matter what supporters 'want'. Lots of things happen that you might not agree with. Clubs have run up debts since the start of time and like it or not that is the responsibility of their owners. The Football League didn't seem to bothered about clubs' welfare when Luton and Portsmouth were going to the wall or when they sanctioned the destruction of Wimbledon. Its about what is right in keeping with competition laws and treating all clubs equally. Why should Leeds be allowed to spend more than Blackburn just because they get more supporters through the gates when Venkys are prepared to spend the money to enable them to compete? If somebody wants to buy a club and spend money on it that's their choice and in the vast majority of cases has been beneficial to English football.

The point about it being harder to compete is simply unacceptable. The whole basis of the football league is that all clubs should be treated equally by the rules. These rules conveniently overlook this and directly benefit those clubs based in cities or with traditionally bigger profiles or support. These clubs can draw on 20,000 a week regardless and have greater access to sponsorship/corporat

e sales.

The prime example of this is Sky Sports, who have just announced Leeds' 13th live broadcast game for the season. If you say its £100,000 a broadcast x 13 = £1,300,000 going straight into Leeds' coffers, which will all help when it comes to FFP. In contrast Rovers have been broadcast 3 times, so will only get £300,000 from Sky. So there's a million pounds that previously could have been cancelled out by Venkys putting the money in, that in future can't happen. How can that be right?

Thanks to these rules these clubs will now be able to offer bigger wages and spend more than your town clubs with 15,000 a week gates and will be protected by law. In the past rich owners have enabled the smaller clubs to compete with the bigger clubs despite having less supporters or sponsors. Not any more. If you think that's right or in any way good for the competition then more fool you.

Rovers are not alone in having some players on 'Premiership wages'. Look at QPR, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Wigan, Reading for others. Rovers are paying Premier League wages because they were in the Premier League for 10 years. What were they supposed to do, NOT pay Premier League wages? And therefore jeopardise their status?

Rovers weren't the first club to 'chuck crazy money at football'. If you knew anything you would know that Rovers spent less than Man Utd and Liverpool when Jack Walker was at the club. So that's that myth put to bed. You also presumably think that Bob Lord's cash had nothing to do with Burnley's 1960 title win?
Morning Jack. I have to say that the Bob Lord comparison doesn't work. He wasn't particularly wealthy. He didn't plough money into BFC. He was simply a cunning and astute business man who was an utter autocrat. There is no form of comparison that can be run with Jack Walker.

His cash had nothing to do with the 1960 BFC title. He didn't inject any! And remember moving players with promises was tougher when that title was won. The maximum wage in football was in place.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gb1882[/bold] wrote: Thats the thing though jack.. I dont want my club running up huge debts it cant ever pay off without promotion to the sky league. If that means its harder to compete so what... thats what a supporter does he supports. You want to continue playing fantasy football in cheating mode playing premiership wages on 12000 gates. Most rovers fans have been spoilt the last 20 years and have had all concept of reality removed. This is perfectly shown by thinking its fine paying £8 million and over 35k a week for 1 player in your team. Kind of karma that the first club to chuck crazy money at football are going to be the ones hampered the most.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what supporters 'want'. Lots of things happen that you might not agree with. Clubs have run up debts since the start of time and like it or not that is the responsibility of their owners. The Football League didn't seem to bothered about clubs' welfare when Luton and Portsmouth were going to the wall or when they sanctioned the destruction of Wimbledon. Its about what is right in keeping with competition laws and treating all clubs equally. Why should Leeds be allowed to spend more than Blackburn just because they get more supporters through the gates when Venkys are prepared to spend the money to enable them to compete? If somebody wants to buy a club and spend money on it that's their choice and in the vast majority of cases has been beneficial to English football. The point about it being harder to compete is simply unacceptable. The whole basis of the football league is that all clubs should be treated equally by the rules. These rules conveniently overlook this and directly benefit those clubs based in cities or with traditionally bigger profiles or support. These clubs can draw on 20,000 a week regardless and have greater access to sponsorship/corporat e sales. The prime example of this is Sky Sports, who have just announced Leeds' 13th live broadcast game for the season. If you say its £100,000 a broadcast x 13 = £1,300,000 going straight into Leeds' coffers, which will all help when it comes to FFP. In contrast Rovers have been broadcast 3 times, so will only get £300,000 from Sky. So there's a million pounds that previously could have been cancelled out by Venkys putting the money in, that in future can't happen. How can that be right? Thanks to these rules these clubs will now be able to offer bigger wages and spend more than your town clubs with 15,000 a week gates and will be protected by law. In the past rich owners have enabled the smaller clubs to compete with the bigger clubs despite having less supporters or sponsors. Not any more. If you think that's right or in any way good for the competition then more fool you. Rovers are not alone in having some players on 'Premiership wages'. Look at QPR, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Wigan, Reading for others. Rovers are paying Premier League wages because they were in the Premier League for 10 years. What were they supposed to do, NOT pay Premier League wages? And therefore jeopardise their status? Rovers weren't the first club to 'chuck crazy money at football'. If you knew anything you would know that Rovers spent less than Man Utd and Liverpool when Jack Walker was at the club. So that's that myth put to bed. You also presumably think that Bob Lord's cash had nothing to do with Burnley's 1960 title win?[/p][/quote]Morning Jack. I have to say that the Bob Lord comparison doesn't work. He wasn't particularly wealthy. He didn't plough money into BFC. He was simply a cunning and astute business man who was an utter autocrat. There is no form of comparison that can be run with Jack Walker. His cash had nothing to do with the 1960 BFC title. He didn't inject any! And remember moving players with promises was tougher when that title was won. The maximum wage in football was in place. RobH2O
  • Score: 4

11:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt

on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape. look.up.blackburn
  • Score: 0

11:37am Fri 28 Feb 14

A Darener says...

Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings. A Darener
  • Score: -1

11:39am Fri 28 Feb 14

SteppBladder says...

RobH2O wrote:
SteppBladder wrote:
Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.
I am a Burnley fan. I am not a troll - unless pursuing Dingle Dangle. I am one of a band, huge in number, of Burnley fans who take this matter very seriously indeed.

FFP is reasonable. The limits of £3m - to £8m do seem arbitrary. No rationale has been offered as to the reasons for the choice.

If we are not promoted, we will have to live within a c13,000 home-crowd footprint. That's merchandise and gate receipts. We also have commercial income. In the log-term, unless you can actually manage a club on the field and off, with flair prudence and imagination, the conference beckons for any club sitting of a 70-80,000 population footprint. Only the giant clubs will emerge because if they apply the same management excellence, allied to the greater resources, they must prevail.

Blackburn are effectively in the same predicament, maybe a touch worse, How this is going to open out in the short term is difficult to call. The longer term is fa easier to call - larger clubs dominating with the gap to the next tier being even greater than today.
My 'troll' comment wasn't referring to you Rob (Mr Water?). All constructive comments are surely welcome. I do agree with your assessment.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SteppBladder[/bold] wrote: Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.[/p][/quote]I am a Burnley fan. I am not a troll - unless pursuing Dingle Dangle. I am one of a band, huge in number, of Burnley fans who take this matter very seriously indeed. FFP is reasonable. The limits of £3m - to £8m do seem arbitrary. No rationale has been offered as to the reasons for the choice. If we are not promoted, we will have to live within a c13,000 home-crowd footprint. That's merchandise and gate receipts. We also have commercial income. In the log-term, unless you can actually manage a club on the field and off, with flair prudence and imagination, the conference beckons for any club sitting of a 70-80,000 population footprint. Only the giant clubs will emerge because if they apply the same management excellence, allied to the greater resources, they must prevail. Blackburn are effectively in the same predicament, maybe a touch worse, How this is going to open out in the short term is difficult to call. The longer term is fa easier to call - larger clubs dominating with the gap to the next tier being even greater than today.[/p][/quote]My 'troll' comment wasn't referring to you Rob (Mr Water?). All constructive comments are surely welcome. I do agree with your assessment. SteppBladder
  • Score: 0

11:44am Fri 28 Feb 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference? Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 2

11:47am Fri 28 Feb 14

Murger says...

Those 3 clubs can threaten legal action if they want, but i'm pretty positive the 21 clubs who voted in favour would do the same.
Those 3 clubs can threaten legal action if they want, but i'm pretty positive the 21 clubs who voted in favour would do the same. Murger
  • Score: 1

11:52am Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

A Darener wrote:
Jack01.....brilliant

ly put! Well written piece, agree with everything you have written. Perhaps what is required is for proper football supporters to make their views known to the powers that be! This Unfair FFP must be defeated.
"This Unfair FFP must be defeated."

Hahaha you morons are absolutely sh!tting your pants about FFP.

Finally you realise the mess you are in. Same old Blackburn Rovers, thinking you are somehow exempt from the rules that govern everyone else.

You deserve everything that is coming to you.

What a shambles!
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Jack01.....brilliant ly put! Well written piece, agree with everything you have written. Perhaps what is required is for proper football supporters to make their views known to the powers that be! This Unfair FFP must be defeated.[/p][/quote]"This Unfair FFP must be defeated." Hahaha you morons are absolutely sh!tting your pants about FFP. Finally you realise the mess you are in. Same old Blackburn Rovers, thinking you are somehow exempt from the rules that govern everyone else. You deserve everything that is coming to you. What a shambles! look.up.blackburn
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Whydidtheybanme? says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it.

Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill.

God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it. Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill. God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept. Whydidtheybanme?
  • Score: -1

12:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jack01 says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
No, not really.

It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in.

You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was.

Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless.

As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them.

The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]No, not really. It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in. You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was. Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless. As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them. The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders. jack01
  • Score: -3

12:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

A Darener says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
As you say gate receipts etc are the reason Man U are where they are. But does that make it fair? Even if the Rovers had won the PL every year of their tenure they would still not have the fan base that Man U Chelsea etc have. The only way they can compete with them is to spend money they haven't got other than by having benevolent owners. Then it is a level playing field. Perhaps all monies raised by every league club should be pooled together then shared equally amongst every club thus giving an equal chance to any club to get to the top. Only the skill of the manager and staff would then be relevant.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]As you say gate receipts etc are the reason Man U are where they are. But does that make it fair? Even if the Rovers had won the PL every year of their tenure they would still not have the fan base that Man U Chelsea etc have. The only way they can compete with them is to spend money they haven't got other than by having benevolent owners. Then it is a level playing field. Perhaps all monies raised by every league club should be pooled together then shared equally amongst every club thus giving an equal chance to any club to get to the top. Only the skill of the manager and staff would then be relevant. A Darener
  • Score: -1

12:21pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bfc341 says...

jack01 wrote:
Its not really a jibe. Its reality that Burnley are getting gates of 10,000-12,000 at home, even during a spectacular season. Sums up your understanding of these proposed rules if you think that its going to help you when you're up against the likes of Derby, Forest, Leeds on 25,000 a week and you have no benefactor to 'make up the shortfall'.

It will dawn on you eventually.
Burnley are already up against those teams..... Plus 3 clubs with bottomless pits of money in Leicester, QPR and Blackburn.

Think we are doing pretty well considering.

Maybe Blackburn should inspire to be like Burnley and stop bleating. You cant spend your way out of trouble anymore.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Its not really a jibe. Its reality that Burnley are getting gates of 10,000-12,000 at home, even during a spectacular season. Sums up your understanding of these proposed rules if you think that its going to help you when you're up against the likes of Derby, Forest, Leeds on 25,000 a week and you have no benefactor to 'make up the shortfall'. It will dawn on you eventually.[/p][/quote]Burnley are already up against those teams..... Plus 3 clubs with bottomless pits of money in Leicester, QPR and Blackburn. Think we are doing pretty well considering. Maybe Blackburn should inspire to be like Burnley and stop bleating. You cant spend your way out of trouble anymore. Bfc341
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

Whydidtheybanme? wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it.

Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill.

God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.
Hello Mally,

No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night.
[quote][p][bold]Whydidtheybanme?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it. Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill. God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.[/p][/quote]Hello Mally, No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night. look.up.blackburn
  • Score: 3

12:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

SteppBladder says...

jack01 wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
No, not really.

It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in.

You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was.

Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless.

As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them.

The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders.
And a lot of JW's investment went into infrastructure and developing training facilities etc.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]No, not really. It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in. You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was. Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless. As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them. The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders.[/p][/quote]And a lot of JW's investment went into infrastructure and developing training facilities etc. SteppBladder
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Tatts says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt


on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims? Tatts
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jack01 says...

Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking!

Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus.

The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season.

Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.
Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking! Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus. The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season. Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things. jack01
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

jack01 wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
No, not really.

It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in.

You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was.

Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless.

As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them.

The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders.
"It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them."

Absolute no-dad nonsense once again from Mr Delusional.

You bought your way up and you bought your way to the title. Its all false my friend. If it wasn't then why are Manchester United and Liverpool no in the Championship? Why are YOU in the Championship and subject to a transfer embargo?

Like Champagne Charlie posted, the clubs that have earned their success the right way, based on gate receipts and club generated revenue are the ones that have maintained their position, while the likes of Blackburn Rovers, Portsmouth, Leeds, etc who have all thrown money at it and failed are now where they deserve to be.

FFP is levelling the field. Clubs now have to operate within their means and cut their cloth accordingly.

The part you cannot get your head around is that many, many clubs, such as Burnley, have used this basic principle to survive for many years and its those clubs who will continue to survive as they have mastered what it takes to achieve success based on a sensible business plan.

You are back where you started, and you will have to fall further in order to rebuild, of this I have no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]No, not really. It doesn't matter how you get the money, whether it is from commercial revenues or from a lifelong supporter putting it in. You live in this fantasy world where the wicked Jack Walker came along and ruined English football with his spending. It simply isn't true, as much as you wish it was. Jack Walker did the same as local businessmen had done for 100 years before him. He supported his local football club with money. Granted he had a lot more money than most, and this enabled a rapid and unprecedented success, but the same principle applies nonetheless. As has been proven, the amount Rovers spent on players and wages in the Jack Walker era was still below Man United and Liverpool. So he didn't 'change the landscape', merely enabled his club to compete with those who previously had the massive advantage of city support. It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them. The culprits for the state of English football today are Sky Sports and the other organisations that have sold English football to the highest bidders.[/p][/quote]"It makes Rovers' title success even more of an achievement when you think that they were outspent by Ferguson and co. and yet still beat them." Absolute no-dad nonsense once again from Mr Delusional. You bought your way up and you bought your way to the title. Its all false my friend. If it wasn't then why are Manchester United and Liverpool no in the Championship? Why are YOU in the Championship and subject to a transfer embargo? Like Champagne Charlie posted, the clubs that have earned their success the right way, based on gate receipts and club generated revenue are the ones that have maintained their position, while the likes of Blackburn Rovers, Portsmouth, Leeds, etc who have all thrown money at it and failed are now where they deserve to be. FFP is levelling the field. Clubs now have to operate within their means and cut their cloth accordingly. The part you cannot get your head around is that many, many clubs, such as Burnley, have used this basic principle to survive for many years and its those clubs who will continue to survive as they have mastered what it takes to achieve success based on a sensible business plan. You are back where you started, and you will have to fall further in order to rebuild, of this I have no doubt. look.up.blackburn
  • Score: -1

12:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt



on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914.

Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960.

We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are.

Think about it.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it. look.up.blackburn
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Tatts says...

Please can someone set up a new message board, specifically for lonely unemployed Dingles with an inferiority complex, so that we can get back to matters relating to Blackburn Rovers!

Please can anyone confirm whether Grant Hanley is injured or not????

The Mirror website are reporting that he faces a lengthy lay off with a calf injury.

LT, please can you report on this, as it is of significantly more interest than a Portuguese reserve team centre half leaving the club!
Please can someone set up a new message board, specifically for lonely unemployed Dingles with an inferiority complex, so that we can get back to matters relating to Blackburn Rovers! Please can anyone confirm whether Grant Hanley is injured or not???? The Mirror website are reporting that he faces a lengthy lay off with a calf injury. LT, please can you report on this, as it is of significantly more interest than a Portuguese reserve team centre half leaving the club! Tatts
  • Score: 1

12:48pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Iiii1111 says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt




on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914.

Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960.

We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are.

Think about it.
Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol Iiii1111
  • Score: 1

12:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

look.up.blackburn says...

Iiii1111 wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt





on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914.

Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960.

We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are.

Think about it.
Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol
We didn't actually play you for 29 of those years due to your massive unfair financial advantage. Had we been given the £100million+ jackpot that you got then the lay of the land would be altogether different.

However, we are approaching a level playing field once more and as the league table shows, we are simply better than you.

Not gloating just saying it how it is.
[quote][p][bold]Iiii1111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol[/p][/quote]We didn't actually play you for 29 of those years due to your massive unfair financial advantage. Had we been given the £100million+ jackpot that you got then the lay of the land would be altogether different. However, we are approaching a level playing field once more and as the league table shows, we are simply better than you. Not gloating just saying it how it is. look.up.blackburn
  • Score: -2

12:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bfc341 says...

jack01 wrote:
Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking!

Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus.

The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season.

Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.
'That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.'

Why not Jack? It would be a much fairer league.

You seem an intelligent chap. Surely it makes sense to stop the mega rich owners ploughing in cash to buy their toy a place in the Sky league.

Yes clubs like ours will have to fight against the likes of Leeds with big crowds but we are doing that anyway. Along with clubs with loads of cash.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking! Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus. The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season. Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.[/p][/quote]'That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.' Why not Jack? It would be a much fairer league. You seem an intelligent chap. Surely it makes sense to stop the mega rich owners ploughing in cash to buy their toy a place in the Sky league. Yes clubs like ours will have to fight against the likes of Leeds with big crowds but we are doing that anyway. Along with clubs with loads of cash. Bfc341
  • Score: 1

1:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Tatts says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt




on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914.

Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960.

We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are.

Think about it.
We had a wealthy fan and it just so happens that our wealthy fan was far wealthier than your wealthy fan(s) - should we feel bad about that because I certainly don't.

Also, you seem to be a bit deluded about where you are at - you've plumbed the depths of the division 4 in recent years, when your gates dropped to less than 2,000; with only a single season in the Premiership to speak of; and you're currently second position in the second division with almost a third of the season still to play - it's not really setting the history books alight is it?
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.[/p][/quote]We had a wealthy fan and it just so happens that our wealthy fan was far wealthier than your wealthy fan(s) - should we feel bad about that because I certainly don't. Also, you seem to be a bit deluded about where you are at - you've plumbed the depths of the division 4 in recent years, when your gates dropped to less than 2,000; with only a single season in the Premiership to speak of; and you're currently second position in the second division with almost a third of the season still to play - it's not really setting the history books alight is it? Tatts
  • Score: 1

1:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Wild Rover says...

Poor pathetic Look up, having a nightly wet dream that Rovers will go out of business, WHY?
Bitter twisted little no d1ck Dingle
Looking forward to putting you out of business Baldric, very soon
Poor pathetic Look up, having a nightly wet dream that Rovers will go out of business, WHY? Bitter twisted little no d1ck Dingle Looking forward to putting you out of business Baldric, very soon Wild Rover
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Iiii1111 says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
Iiii1111 wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt






on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914.

Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960.

We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are.

Think about it.
Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol
We didn't actually play you for 29 of those years due to your massive unfair financial advantage. Had we been given the £100million+ jackpot that you got then the lay of the land would be altogether different.

However, we are approaching a level playing field once more and as the league table shows, we are simply better than you.

Not gloating just saying it how it is.
I was at a certain Burnley v Leyton Orient game quite awhile back when you were in the then fourth division.....Rovers 'wealth' wasn't responsible for your demise in those days...don't even think Jack W had any input into rovers affairs at that time.....you might be right that most of the 34 years you avoided the Rovers because you were in an inferior league, but lots of those years Rovers were a then second division team battling to get into the then First division competing with the likes of Spurs & Chelsea without any financial
backing at the time.
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iiii1111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Never beating Rovers in over 34 years.....and you gloat lol[/p][/quote]We didn't actually play you for 29 of those years due to your massive unfair financial advantage. Had we been given the £100million+ jackpot that you got then the lay of the land would be altogether different. However, we are approaching a level playing field once more and as the league table shows, we are simply better than you. Not gloating just saying it how it is.[/p][/quote]I was at a certain Burnley v Leyton Orient game quite awhile back when you were in the then fourth division.....Rovers 'wealth' wasn't responsible for your demise in those days...don't even think Jack W had any input into rovers affairs at that time.....you might be right that most of the 34 years you avoided the Rovers because you were in an inferior league, but lots of those years Rovers were a then second division team battling to get into the then First division competing with the likes of Spurs & Chelsea without any financial backing at the time. Iiii1111
  • Score: 1

1:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

speedie_rovers_legend says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt


on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Fo
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Fo speedie_rovers_legend
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Harwoodstblue says...

SteppBladder wrote:
Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.
Debate !!

They'd have to look up the meaning of the word first.
[quote][p][bold]SteppBladder[/bold] wrote: Rovers didn't vote for these rules because they were in the premiership at the time so it would be no surprise if they are one of the clubs who are looking at legal action. Personally, I think FFP is reasonable but the limits £3 - 8 million are a nonsense and will only serve to limit the potential of clubs to compete effectively with others in this league. I also think it’s a shame that the Burnley trolls who infest these pages cannot join in the debate, which will, in the long term, affect them as much as anyone else, without calling people "tool" "arrogant" and "moron”.[/p][/quote]Debate !! They'd have to look up the meaning of the word first. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChrisDeBerg says...

There's two solutions to this in my eyes...

#1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket.

2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER?

Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!!
There's two solutions to this in my eyes... #1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket. 2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER? Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!! ChrisDeBerg
  • Score: 5

1:45pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Wild Rover says...

Like I said yesterday, about look up - Baldric
You might as well argue with a chimp, all he does is jump up and down sreaming and throwing sh1t at you......ooooooh oooh aaaghh ąagh
Like I said yesterday, about look up - Baldric You might as well argue with a chimp, all he does is jump up and down sreaming and throwing sh1t at you......ooooooh oooh aaaghh ąagh Wild Rover
  • Score: 2

1:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

FCBurnley says...

Some fascinating views on here. Basically all Rovers fans think FFP is unfair and Burnley fans think it fair. So here are the facts.

Bob Lord did not break the rules when Burnley were Champions
Jack Walker did not break the rules when Rovers were Champions
Rovers are currently breaking the rules along with a number of other clubs.
Rules are not meant to be fair. Is a 30mph speed limit fair ? No but if you drive at 50 mph you will be breaking the law and punished accordingly.
Rovers, QPR and Leicester and probably Forest are breaking the rules and must be punished accordingly. It is a risk they have all knowingly taken. They have all `Bet the Ranch` and if they get promotion the fine they receive will be chicken feed ( in Rovers case !). They will have gambled and won. If however they do not get promoted then they will be punished. It is not a question of fair or unfair. It is the rules.
Man up Shaw. You have gambled the future of Blackburn Rovers. The next few games will decide if you are a hero or a villain. C`est La Vie.
Some fascinating views on here. Basically all Rovers fans think FFP is unfair and Burnley fans think it fair. So here are the facts. Bob Lord did not break the rules when Burnley were Champions Jack Walker did not break the rules when Rovers were Champions Rovers are currently breaking the rules along with a number of other clubs. Rules are not meant to be fair. Is a 30mph speed limit fair ? No but if you drive at 50 mph you will be breaking the law and punished accordingly. Rovers, QPR and Leicester and probably Forest are breaking the rules and must be punished accordingly. It is a risk they have all knowingly taken. They have all `Bet the Ranch` and if they get promotion the fine they receive will be chicken feed ( in Rovers case !). They will have gambled and won. If however they do not get promoted then they will be punished. It is not a question of fair or unfair. It is the rules. Man up Shaw. You have gambled the future of Blackburn Rovers. The next few games will decide if you are a hero or a villain. C`est La Vie. FCBurnley
  • Score: 2

1:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bfc341 says...

ChrisDeBerg wrote:
There's two solutions to this in my eyes...

#1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket.

2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER?

Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!!
Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams.

Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs?

I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give.
[quote][p][bold]ChrisDeBerg[/bold] wrote: There's two solutions to this in my eyes... #1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket. 2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER? Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!![/p][/quote]Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams. Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs? I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give. Bfc341
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bfc341 says...

ChrisDeBerg wrote:
There's two solutions to this in my eyes...

#1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket.

2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER?

Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!!
Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams.

Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs?

I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give.
[quote][p][bold]ChrisDeBerg[/bold] wrote: There's two solutions to this in my eyes... #1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket. 2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER? Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!![/p][/quote]Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams. Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs? I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give. Bfc341
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChrisDeBerg says...

Bfc341 wrote:
ChrisDeBerg wrote:
There's two solutions to this in my eyes...

#1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket.

2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER?

Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!!
Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams.

Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs?

I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give.
But reality is, people from Fleetwood and Rochdale want to see Fleetwood v Rochdale, and with worldwide coverage of the game, maybe more would start to want to too... With the fact that these clubs may get 3-4 games coverage per season, it would be likely to draw more interest and drive up gates for the small clubs on non televised weeks... Plus, the whole point of these rules is to stop the get promoted or go bust trying mentality, promotion would be based on pride rather than money and eventually European football once (if ever) the team reached the Premier league. Plus, higher league teams would still get better promotion deals, so other than silverware (which is what all clubs should be playing for), there would still be an incentive to be promoted.

I haven't ironed out a full debate to go to FIFA with exactly, but it seems a better way than the shambles of a decision they have come up with... Plus, let the premier league teams cry about it... I can guarantee 3 leagues below them would be outvoting them in favour of these rules... and by the sounds of things, its all about the votes that count?
[quote][p][bold]Bfc341[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChrisDeBerg[/bold] wrote: There's two solutions to this in my eyes... #1) Let owners invest into clubs, but only on the basis that a club must have enough positive funds in a non-creditable account to cover all known costs to cover contractual agreements, basically meaning that an owner must do his business away from the club and could only skim off the profits made above the actual running costs, with no option to secure any of their personal loans on club equity.. Thus meaning the clubs would always run financially well and only attract business men with good intentions for the running of a club, as it would only be them that was out of pocket. 2) Split premier league (sky / BT) payments across the 4 leagues more evenly, which in my eyes would be the much better solution for 'FAIR PLAY'!! Bigger teams would have to pay less to their players as their revenue would be less and smaller teams could improve their teams with more revenue coming in, evening out the league.. The leagues would EVEN OUT, is this not FAIRER? Don't let these rules fool you, it is the centuries old scheme of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... Split the money across all 4 leagues and start showing more lower league games on Sky and BT while you are at it!! So what if they have to bring out 3 new channels for lower league football, probably bring in more revenue!![/p][/quote]Sharing the money across all 4 leagues is a good idea but nobody wants to watch Fleetwood v Rochdale. The pubs are full for a top of the prem clash between 2 of the top teams. Also the prem clubs wouldn't go for it. They want all the money for themselves. Would you not also get this spend big lets get into league 2 attitude by the conference clubs? I don't know what the answer is but something needs to give.[/p][/quote]But reality is, people from Fleetwood and Rochdale want to see Fleetwood v Rochdale, and with worldwide coverage of the game, maybe more would start to want to too... With the fact that these clubs may get 3-4 games coverage per season, it would be likely to draw more interest and drive up gates for the small clubs on non televised weeks... Plus, the whole point of these rules is to stop the get promoted or go bust trying mentality, promotion would be based on pride rather than money and eventually European football once (if ever) the team reached the Premier league. Plus, higher league teams would still get better promotion deals, so other than silverware (which is what all clubs should be playing for), there would still be an incentive to be promoted. I haven't ironed out a full debate to go to FIFA with exactly, but it seems a better way than the shambles of a decision they have come up with... Plus, let the premier league teams cry about it... I can guarantee 3 leagues below them would be outvoting them in favour of these rules... and by the sounds of things, its all about the votes that count? ChrisDeBerg
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Wild Rover says...

Look, to me it is simple. I have said this before on the pages.
These rules have no Fair play in them They are status quo rules. The bigger richer clubs will stay rich and the smaller town clubs will stay poor.
Eventually the leagues will be in tune with population demographics with the city clubs at the top and the towns struggling at the bottom.
And as for smug Burnley fans _? like look-up you should realise that Burnley will get dragged down just the same as the rest.
Small town, tiny gates and low income. You will have to sell to balance your books and the bigger income clubs will poach the best players from the small fry, as they do now
So status quo, end of.
If they want fair play they need to put a fixed budget in place for each club, the same amount for ALL and bring back a wage cap for players. That would be fair
But dont hold your breath, well except Baldric, you can try for a week
Look, to me it is simple. I have said this before on the pages. These rules have no Fair play in them They are status quo rules. The bigger richer clubs will stay rich and the smaller town clubs will stay poor. Eventually the leagues will be in tune with population demographics with the city clubs at the top and the towns struggling at the bottom. And as for smug Burnley fans _? like look-up you should realise that Burnley will get dragged down just the same as the rest. Small town, tiny gates and low income. You will have to sell to balance your books and the bigger income clubs will poach the best players from the small fry, as they do now So status quo, end of. If they want fair play they need to put a fixed budget in place for each club, the same amount for ALL and bring back a wage cap for players. That would be fair But dont hold your breath, well except Baldric, you can try for a week Wild Rover
  • Score: 2

3:40pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bfc341 says...

Burnley want the rules because we dont have rich owners putting money in. We sell every year to balance the books already.

Blackburn dont want them because they have rich owners.

Simple really.
Burnley want the rules because we dont have rich owners putting money in. We sell every year to balance the books already. Blackburn dont want them because they have rich owners. Simple really. Bfc341
  • Score: 2

3:52pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jimluftas says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt


on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Your club is on the verge of promotion, so why are you still so bitter about our dominance for the last 3 decades? Why are you even on these pages? Will you ever be happy?
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Your club is on the verge of promotion, so why are you still so bitter about our dominance for the last 3 decades? Why are you even on these pages? Will you ever be happy? jimluftas
  • Score: 2

4:05pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Whydidtheybanme? says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
Whydidtheybanme? wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it.

Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill.

God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.
Hello Mally,

No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night.
There you go again, reducing it to your level. Just remember, all that you are you owe to your parents - why don't you settle your account and give them that 1p back?

If you'd like any more words of wisdom i'll be out for a pint or 2 over the weekend......
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whydidtheybanme?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it. Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill. God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.[/p][/quote]Hello Mally, No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night.[/p][/quote]There you go again, reducing it to your level. Just remember, all that you are you owe to your parents - why don't you settle your account and give them that 1p back? If you'd like any more words of wisdom i'll be out for a pint or 2 over the weekend...... Whydidtheybanme?
  • Score: 1

4:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

owd nick says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
BlueSkies wrote:
It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me.
Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?'
Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice.
Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.
If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby??
The problem is not everyone will stick by the rules, and the big clubs are already finding ways around them, and they have the financial clout to do so.

Man City and Chelsea have already done so (Chelsea lost more money than Rovers last season) Man U are funding a debt to their owners of over £300 million; etc, etc.

Can you see any of these clubs being penalised? I can't.

It's no different to rich people being able to avoid or evade paying taxes while we who are taxed at source pay our full whack.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlueSkies[/bold] wrote: It's madness, to prevent the owner of a football club from making investments in his own business, to move it potentially from a loss-making one into profitability seems bizarre to me. Historically clubs have generally been 'money-pits', and that hasn't changed much, so to place restrictions on running them smacks of decision makers who are not aware of that history, which then begs the question 'are these individuals fit for purpose?' Perhaps FFP is a way of getting rid of the smaller clubs, putting them out of business. Short sited then as this will lead obviously to fewer clubs, fewer players, no pyramid system, less choice. Perhaps it's all geared to us having to get our football fix by watching EPL or the Super Duper Euro League.[/p][/quote]If everyone sticks to the rules rather then no one goes out of business. That's the point. What on earth do you think the Premier League Parachute Payments are for - piddling up the wall? And don't say investing in unknown Portugese non-entities as I'll be directing you to work for a certain Mr S Kean in Malaysia, or perhaps you could be an even more specialist adviser than Shebby??[/p][/quote]The problem is not everyone will stick by the rules, and the big clubs are already finding ways around them, and they have the financial clout to do so. Man City and Chelsea have already done so (Chelsea lost more money than Rovers last season) Man U are funding a debt to their owners of over £300 million; etc, etc. Can you see any of these clubs being penalised? I can't. It's no different to rich people being able to avoid or evade paying taxes while we who are taxed at source pay our full whack. owd nick
  • Score: 1

4:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jim 2012 says...

gb1882 wrote:
Good to see jack bringing last years news today.

keep up old boy


Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold.
it may be last years news but it hasn't not gone away for burnley
you burnley fans need to be careful what you wish for
[quote][p][bold]gb1882[/bold] wrote: Good to see jack bringing last years news today. keep up old boy Even managed to get in 10,000 crowd jibe bless him. Its people like you with your smug arrogance that deserve their club to fold.[/p][/quote]it may be last years news but it hasn't not gone away for burnley you burnley fans need to be careful what you wish for jim 2012
  • Score: -1

5:06pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Riverside 7 says...

jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt

on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
I totaly agree Jack.
I said on this forum a couple of months ago that I could see the FFP Rules being challenged in the Courts and it looks like several clubs are now prepared to test the resolve of the Football League.
If an owner wans to invest his own money in a business it is a 'restraint of trade' to stop him from doing so.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]I totaly agree Jack. I said on this forum a couple of months ago that I could see the FFP Rules being challenged in the Courts and it looks like several clubs are now prepared to test the resolve of the Football League. If an owner wans to invest his own money in a business it is a 'restraint of trade' to stop him from doing so. Riverside 7
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

tall in the saddle says...

jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt

on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
Man City and Chelsea have changed the face of English football. They have brought in mercenary payers and frankly, in my view have not enhanced our game at all. Also you have said they changed it forever. What happens when Sheik Mansur and Abramovich get fed up with their ‘toys’?
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]Man City and Chelsea have changed the face of English football. They have brought in mercenary payers and frankly, in my view have not enhanced our game at all. Also you have said they changed it forever. What happens when Sheik Mansur and Abramovich get fed up with their ‘toys’? tall in the saddle
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Fri 28 Feb 14

azza234 says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?
Yeah of course so why is it man u are in so much debt then you answered one question yourself there charlie if in term of money man u spent more then we did and we won the prem and. Thats what man u having been doing almost every year is buying the prem now that man city chelsea got owners that are rich the gulf that man u had is cut hence why there not doing that good now. Speaking of this 60k to 70k gates man u get how isn't going to last long when you think that they pay rooney 300k a week this rule should be placed on prem clubs aswell since there the ones that spend silly money.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]Yeah of course so why is it man u are in so much debt then you answered one question yourself there charlie if in term of money man u spent more then we did and we won the prem and. Thats what man u having been doing almost every year is buying the prem now that man city chelsea got owners that are rich the gulf that man u had is cut hence why there not doing that good now. Speaking of this 60k to 70k gates man u get how isn't going to last long when you think that they pay rooney 300k a week this rule should be placed on prem clubs aswell since there the ones that spend silly money. azza234
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

tall in the saddle says...

A Darener wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.
Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well.
In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money.

Can you not see the difference?
As you say gate receipts etc are the reason Man U are where they are. But does that make it fair? Even if the Rovers had won the PL every year of their tenure they would still not have the fan base that Man U Chelsea etc have. The only way they can compete with them is to spend money they haven't got other than by having benevolent owners. Then it is a level playing field. Perhaps all monies raised by every league club should be pooled together then shared equally amongst every club thus giving an equal chance to any club to get to the top. Only the skill of the manager and staff would then be relevant.
In which case Burnley would be right up there at the top.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Rob.... As previously stated by others, Jack spent less than some of the other clubs in the PL. All clubs that have won anything since professional football started have "bought" their winnings.[/p][/quote]Yes Man Utd may have spent more than Blackburn during this period, but they had circa 60-70k gate receipts every week plus the world's biggest commercial revenue stream as well. In layman's terms they earned their money before spending it on players, Blackburn simply went to Jack Walker with their cap in hand asking for his money. Can you not see the difference?[/p][/quote]As you say gate receipts etc are the reason Man U are where they are. But does that make it fair? Even if the Rovers had won the PL every year of their tenure they would still not have the fan base that Man U Chelsea etc have. The only way they can compete with them is to spend money they haven't got other than by having benevolent owners. Then it is a level playing field. Perhaps all monies raised by every league club should be pooled together then shared equally amongst every club thus giving an equal chance to any club to get to the top. Only the skill of the manager and staff would then be relevant.[/p][/quote]In which case Burnley would be right up there at the top. tall in the saddle
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

azza234 says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.
Your still in the same league so what's your point your 2nd in the league once in about 100 years and you think your don one if you get to the prem all your cockyness will be gone when your botom of the league and your board keep the money and do one.
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]You last won the league title fair and square (without a massive financial advantage over other clubs) in 1914. Burnley last won the league title fair and square in 1960. We have never had the financial advantages that you have had and look where we are. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Your still in the same league so what's your point your 2nd in the league once in about 100 years and you think your don one if you get to the prem all your cockyness will be gone when your botom of the league and your board keep the money and do one. azza234
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

tall in the saddle says...

jack01 wrote:
Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking!

Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus.

The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season.

Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.
Oh I think every club would like to be run like Burnley. Up at the top after spending little. QPR’s owner and the like must be shaking their heads in wonder. Let’s face it a very, very well run club.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking! Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus. The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season. Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.[/p][/quote]Oh I think every club would like to be run like Burnley. Up at the top after spending little. QPR’s owner and the like must be shaking their heads in wonder. Let’s face it a very, very well run club. tall in the saddle
  • Score: -2

5:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

tall in the saddle says...

jack01 wrote:
Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking!

Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus.

The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season.

Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.
Oh I think every club would like to be run like Burnley. Up at the top after spending little. QPR’s owner and the like must be shaking their heads in wonder. Let’s face it a very, very well run club.
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Aspire to be like Burnley? You must be joking! Burnley are a one-off. An anomaly. Everyone, including Burnley supporters, knows that Burnley are doing astonishingly well and are punching way above their weight and expectations this season. You look at the League table and everyone else in the top half has either parachute money, a rich owner or has crowds of 20,000 plus. The small town clubs gather at the bottom of this division. Barnsley, Doncaster, Yeovil, Bolton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield - all bottom half. That was where 99% of people expected Burnley to be too. Credit that they are currently defying all the odds, which is probably why so many Burnley supporters have such warped views when it comes to FFP, but it isn't normal or likely to happen every season. Burnley are the only club that is currently doing well in the Championship that hasn't 'spent' big money to get there. That doesn't mean all clubs should suddenly start following Burnley's way of doing things.[/p][/quote]Oh I think every club would like to be run like Burnley. Up at the top after spending little. QPR’s owner and the like must be shaking their heads in wonder. Let’s face it a very, very well run club. tall in the saddle
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Fri 28 Feb 14

azza234 says...

Whydidtheybanme? wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
Whydidtheybanme? wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh!
Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it. Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill. God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.
Hello Mally, No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night.
There you go again, reducing it to your level. Just remember, all that you are you owe to your parents - why don't you settle your account and give them that 1p back? If you'd like any more words of wisdom i'll be out for a pint or 2 over the weekend......
He wont because he's your typical keyboard warrior.
[quote][p][bold]Whydidtheybanme?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Whydidtheybanme?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]Just catching up and read your post from yesterday my 6 fingered friend - seriously it is an obsession you have matey and I'd get some treatment for it. Just look at the words you use and the fact that you are on the Rovers posts constantly, signing up for email updates for replays to your posts. I know you have a lot of time on your hands, but I think you're ill. God knows what you'll do if you don't win, but don't do it before you pay me the £20 wager you owe me if we turn you over - double or quits from Sept.[/p][/quote]Hello Mally, No worries, I'll just give your mum double tomorrow night.[/p][/quote]There you go again, reducing it to your level. Just remember, all that you are you owe to your parents - why don't you settle your account and give them that 1p back? If you'd like any more words of wisdom i'll be out for a pint or 2 over the weekend......[/p][/quote]He wont because he's your typical keyboard warrior. azza234
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DoggydogNo1 says...

Moan,moan,moan,moan. thats all ya ever get on here, aint it? If ya in debt and are making a loss and yet still spend money you have not got on players,then tough! PAY UP! Mind you, would rather have clubs failing be docked 10 points at the start of the season and this has to included the premiership too! Why are the top clubs exempt from this? Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc
Moan,moan,moan,moan. thats all ya ever get on here, aint it? If ya in debt and are making a loss and yet still spend money you have not got on players,then tough! PAY UP! Mind you, would rather have clubs failing be docked 10 points at the start of the season and this has to included the premiership too! Why are the top clubs exempt from this? Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc DoggydogNo1
  • Score: 2

5:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bluenick says...

Itsnotmeyoubellend wrote:
FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket.
It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules.
Look in your own backyard Dinglies!!
8 million loss is not living within your means is it?
Or maybe Mr. Flood is going to top your coffers up? After he's paid his other debts off !
What a set of kn@bs you higher than might Dingles are!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Itsnotmeyoubellend[/bold] wrote: FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket. It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules.[/p][/quote]Look in your own backyard Dinglies!! 8 million loss is not living within your means is it? Or maybe Mr. Flood is going to top your coffers up? After he's paid his other debts off ! What a set of kn@bs you higher than might Dingles are!!!! bluenick
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

eddyo says...

look.up.blackburn wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)
The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world.

Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club!

Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait.

The end is nigh!
You live within your means - and that is the best comeuppence you could have, you scrag-end.
[quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I don't think he fully understands living within one's means. No business should be allowed to plan to lose more than £3M (or £8M) a year if it wants to be sustainable. If you have a bigger fan base then you have more money - that was always the way before all the TV money distorted things (and in my view wrecked the game creating premier league player mentality). Sure there will be some pain but at the end of the day it's common sense and the right thing to do. Blackburn will be ok either way as most of the restructuring is done anyway and Rhodes will either stay or go at the end of this season (ie before any embargo might kick in)[/p][/quote]The free ride ends here moron's. It's time to live within your means just like every other club. Welcome to the real world. Jack Walkers money planted the poisoned seed that has destroyed our beautiful game and you are now going to pay the price. Couldn't happen to a nicer club! Blackburn Rovers will be brought to its knees with FFP and I for one can't wait. The end is nigh![/p][/quote]You live within your means - and that is the best comeuppence you could have, you scrag-end. eddyo
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Steven Seagull says...

A Darener wrote:
I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity.
And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish.
The delusion and arrogance is literally quite staggering.

Thinking you'll get your own way just because you don't agree? Really?

You won't get your own way and you'll have to conform to the regulations like everybody else.

" I'm sure there will be loopholes" that just shows how desperate you are, praying for a way out of the back door.

Why should you wriggle out of it when everybody else has to be part of it? Your attitude and arrogance is shocking.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: I think the clubs who do not agree with FFP will in the end get their own way. I am sure European Union trading laws will be found to have loopholes that destroy the ideas behind FFP. I am sure lawyers will have a field day pulling apart the new rules. The court case could go on for years probably meaning the rules cannot be implemented until the courts have ruled on their validity. And well they might. Nobody should have the right to stop a company owners spending money as they wish.[/p][/quote]The delusion and arrogance is literally quite staggering. Thinking you'll get your own way just because you don't agree? Really? You won't get your own way and you'll have to conform to the regulations like everybody else. " I'm sure there will be loopholes" that just shows how desperate you are, praying for a way out of the back door. Why should you wriggle out of it when everybody else has to be part of it? Your attitude and arrogance is shocking. Steven Seagull
  • Score: -1

6:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Steven Seagull says...

Tatts wrote:
look.up.blackburn wrote:
jack01 wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory.

The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs.

The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt



on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal.

It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad.

Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment.

I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?
"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment."

Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year.

What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come.

Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract.

What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers.

The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season.

For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking.

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means.

Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015.

The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad.

This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.
Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money!

Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now.

For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy.

You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory

Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?
As opposed to the highlights of your European adventure which consisted of David Batty and Greame Le Saux fighting on the pitch with each other and getting spanked by a part time team full of plumbers and window cleaners from Sweden.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]look.up.blackburn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: The point that seems to be missed here is that the Football League thinks it has a right to interfere with the private affairs of clubs. Blackburn Rovers are a private business, 99% owned by a family. It is their right as owners of the company to do as they wish with it. That means they can spend as much as they want, lose as much as they want, sack who they want, just as they could if they bought an airline or factory. The Football League are now trying to convince the public that these rules are being introduced to 'protect' clubs for the long term. Its astonishing that some people are falling for this and actually believe there is any interest in safeguarding clubs after what the Football League has allowed to happen to Luton, Portsmouth, Wimbledon and Coventry in recent years. The authorities in this country have no interest in looking after football clubs. The only benefit that the League sees in these rules is it will make it even more difficult for clubs like Blackburn/Wigan/Bolt on to get into the Premier League in the future, whilst simultaneously making it easier for clubs like Leeds and Nottingham Forest to get up, courtesy of their 20,000 crowds and city appeal. It becomes even more laughable when the two clubs responsible for the biggest overspending in memory and who have changed the landscape of English football forever, Man City and Chelsea, will be able to carry on as they were, immune from punishment because the authorities dare not upset their owners and run the risk of the 'star' players moving abroad. Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment. Some Clarets seem to be under the impression they will be benefiting from these rules with their 10,000 crowds and no investment. I completely understand why Rovers and other clubs should be challenging these rules. On the surface it appears to me to contravene a number of laws around freedom of trade. The Football League will be hoping clubs shut up and go along with it. They will start to panic when some of the bigger Championship clubs with wealthy owners start to gang up and challenge them. Why should owners' investments be jeopardised by rules they have had no say in introducing?[/p][/quote]"Burnley idiots fail to appreciate that if these rules are enforced they will be straight on the list of sanctioned clubs. An £8 million loss last year which will not be reduced by owner investment." Burnley are expected to break even this season. It's well documented. Perhaps do your homework next time instead of typing out your warped fantasies. The £8million figure reported did not include the £3-4million fee received for Charlie Austin, and did include the one-off repurchase of Turf Moor and the training ground. So all things considered we will break even this year. What we have in our favour is that we have developed a squad that has been assembled for peanuts into one of the best outside of the Premier League with arguably 3 of the best Championship players. Danny Ings, a current England U21 and potential future England striker, could be valued anywhere between £8million and £12million, Sam Vokes a 30-cap Wales international possibly in the £5million bracket and Keiran Trippier, without doubt the best full back outside of the Premier League would easily command £8million in today's money. Looking at the financial side if Burnley were to receive offers for these three players alone then we would be looking at an income of approx £20-25million, which given our frugal approach in recent seasons and the efforts at operating in-line with FFP, would secure the future of the club for years to come. Burnley have re-signed several first team players on contracts tailored to spending within our means, Sam Vokes is one, another is Ross Wallace who agreed reduced terms to extend his contract. What you morons fail to realise is that FFP is already agreed, approved, and voted in by the Premier League and Football League clubs. Those 3 clubs who are now hitting the panic button are Leicester, QPR and of course the worst culprit Blackburn Rovers. The overspend at all three clubs was calculated in an attempt at reaching the Premier League whereupon the financial punishment would be covered by the increase revenue from TV rights, with promotion said to be worth upwards of £120million next season. For Leicester the gamble would appear to be paying off, QPR are looking at a play-off position, but poor old Blackburn Rovers are now 9th in the table with no chance of the play-off's and a third season in the Championship looming. This is why Mr Shaw is panicking. The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers WILL be subject to a transfer embargo. The FFP rules apply to all, that's the whole idea. It is a leveller intended to prevent jumped up nobodies such as the Blackburn Rovers of this world attempting to gain an unfair financial advantage. As you say a club is a business and as such a business should be sensibly run within its means. Your future will involve further huge cost cutting exercises, the sale of all assets of value, Dann has already gone, Rhodes will go, and all other high earners will go. No replacements will be brought in other than the cheap knock-off's you are now becoming used to. Bowyer is operating within restrictions as shown in his transfer dealings this season ahead of the transfer embargo in January 2015. The worry is that it will take Blackburn Rovers many YEARS to fully comply with the FFP rules, and during this time you will be unable to spend and forced to restructure from the bottom up developing your own players, like clubs such as Burnley have done for many YEARS. And as I have said before, this process will than likely involve you dropping into League One as you will no longer be able to compete in the Championship without a Championship squad. This is your future, your club is in part responsible for this mess, you deserve your punishment, and sadly there is no escape.[/p][/quote]Jack Walker was no different to Barry Kilby and Brendan Flood - he just had more money! Ok, Kilby and Flood took their cash back out when you got promoted but without it, you wouldn't have had got promoted in the first place and you wouldn't have had the parachute payments that have allowed you to be in the position you are in now. For any Dingle to criticise Jack Walker is sheer hypocrisy, bourne out of jealousy. You're only bitter because Walker helped us win the Premier League and a League Cup in recent memory Presumably you're now going to try to compare this to a league title that you won 15 years after Hitler was toppled, 9 years before man walked on the moon and when JFK was still in power, along with winning one single European Cup match against French nobodies Stade De Reims?[/p][/quote]As opposed to the highlights of your European adventure which consisted of David Batty and Greame Le Saux fighting on the pitch with each other and getting spanked by a part time team full of plumbers and window cleaners from Sweden. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Fri 28 Feb 14

owd nick says...

bluenick wrote:
Itsnotmeyoubellend wrote:
FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket.
It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules.
Look in your own backyard Dinglies!!
8 million loss is not living within your means is it?
Or maybe Mr. Flood is going to top your coffers up? After he's paid his other debts off !
What a set of kn@bs you higher than might Dingles are!!!!
The only reason Flood is back is he smells PL money, just like last time.

Interesting that yesterday Ings was talking about wanting to follow in the footsteps of Rodriguez, of course that can be read two ways but if he really wants the chance of playing for England he really does need to look at clubs that are challenging for 6th place in the PL.
[quote][p][bold]bluenick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Itsnotmeyoubellend[/bold] wrote: FFP is being introduced to try to make irresponsible football clubs operate within their means. Thus avoiding scenarios like we've seen in the past where clubs have gambled with money that they don't have only for it to go tits up and the club go into administration, leaving the taxpayer (usually) and a lot of small businesses seriously out of pocket. It comes as no suprise that Blackburn Rovers, a club with a history of living beyond their means, are speaking out against these new rules.[/p][/quote]Look in your own backyard Dinglies!! 8 million loss is not living within your means is it? Or maybe Mr. Flood is going to top your coffers up? After he's paid his other debts off ! What a set of kn@bs you higher than might Dingles are!!!![/p][/quote]The only reason Flood is back is he smells PL money, just like last time. Interesting that yesterday Ings was talking about wanting to follow in the footsteps of Rodriguez, of course that can be read two ways but if he really wants the chance of playing for England he really does need to look at clubs that are challenging for 6th place in the PL. owd nick
  • Score: 1

9:52am Sat 1 Mar 14

RobH2O says...

DoggydogNo1 wrote:
Moan,moan,moan,moan. thats all ya ever get on here, aint it? If ya in debt and are making a loss and yet still spend money you have not got on players,then tough! PAY UP! Mind you, would rather have clubs failing be docked 10 points at the start of the season and this has to included the premiership too! Why are the top clubs exempt from this? Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc
Doggydog, you ask the question "Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc". That's effectively part of FFP
[quote][p][bold]DoggydogNo1[/bold] wrote: Moan,moan,moan,moan. thats all ya ever get on here, aint it? If ya in debt and are making a loss and yet still spend money you have not got on players,then tough! PAY UP! Mind you, would rather have clubs failing be docked 10 points at the start of the season and this has to included the premiership too! Why are the top clubs exempt from this? Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc[/p][/quote]Doggydog, you ask the question "Perhaps cap the amount you can spend on players linked to gates etc". That's effectively part of FFP RobH2O
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sat 1 Mar 14

woz1974 says...

in 92 season under kenny when we went up derby spent more than us !!!
in 92 season under kenny when we went up derby spent more than us !!! woz1974
  • Score: 1

5:04pm Sat 1 Mar 14

speedie_rovers_legend says...

Nonsense just what shaw speaks, how far this club have fallen with people like him running the club god help us.
Nonsense just what shaw speaks, how far this club have fallen with people like him running the club god help us. speedie_rovers_legend
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree