Report this comment
  • "
    Super_Clarets wrote:
    TurfMoorTom wrote:
    inflightmagazine wrote:
    J.C - Rishton wrote:
    TurfMoorTom wrote:
    J.C - Rishton wrote:
    TurfMoorTom wrote:
    I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

    The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............

    Hi Tom

    This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

    We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

    If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

    Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

    1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
    2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
    3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
    4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
    5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

    All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
    Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

    This is how I saw it some time back:

    So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

    That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

    So that would get us to:
    Championship TV £3m
    Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
    Sponsorships say £3m
    Parachute £8m
    Player trading £8m
    Wages (~£18m)
    Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

    The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

    With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

    This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

    Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
    Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

    You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

    (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

    I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
    if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.
    Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.
    Sadly you are wide of the mark yet again Tom

    So what you're saying is that your club, having lost £36.5million last season, having made a minimal reduction to running costs and wage bill this season, and having now to find an additional £8million on top of the current seasons losses, will somehow magically be not too far away from meeting FFP?

    how do you get a minimal reduction in costs ect. £11m in 2013 on transfers not spent , £2m Henning Berg settlement not spent, Nuno gomes and Danny Murphy contracts paid up in 2013 not spent circa £3-5 million. Appleton settlement not spent

    16 Fring players released.

    The lower league clubs will be desperate for the bigger clubs to be released from Transfer embargos, they need bigger clubs to come in and buy their players to survive.

    Look what sending Rangers down has done to Scottish club revenues.

    They would not even be having these meetings if there was not a problem"
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.

  • Enter the above word in the box below

Blackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected

Shaun Harvey

Shaun Harvey

First published in Sport

FOUR proposed changes to Financial Fair Play regulations for Blackburn Rovers and their fellow Championship clubs have been rejected.

Several unnamed clubs have threatened legal action against the regulations, which could see Rovers hit with a transfer embargo in January, but efforts to agree changes have failed.

The legal threat and concern over the impact of the new £23million parachute payments for the three clubs relegated from the Premier League led Football League bosses to review the regulations.

But all four proposals – three of them related to boosting the level of losses and owner investment permitted – were defeated in a vote by the 24 Championship clubs.

The fourth proposal was for the rules to be imposed based on ‘real time’ financial figures instead of the existing retrospective system.

But it too failed to attract the necessary 75 per cent backing.

According to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey, other alternatives would now be examined.

Harvey said: “While a majority of clubs did vote in favour of each of the four proposals, they did not achieve the 75 per cent support required.

”We will now continue the positive and collaborative dialogue we have had with Championship clubs on this issue to see if there is any appetite for alternative forms of change.”

Rovers will suffer a transfer embargo in January if they do meet the existing regulations.

Existing FFP regulations 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.

The existing regulations permit Championship clubs to lose £6m next season, 2014-15, but £3m of that must be covered by owner investment.

There were three proposals to increase that allowance to either £10m, £11.4m or £12.8m.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has also expressed serious concerns about the existing system, which is based on just one year, while controls over the top-flight clubs take into account three years’ figures and allow more owner investment.

The first sanctions against Championship clubs will be announced in December based on accounts for the current 2013-14 season.

The existing FFP regulations 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 (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

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