Report this comment
  • "
    Super_Clarets wrote:
    jim 2012 wrote:
    bluenwhite wrote:
    Super_Clarets wrote:
    TurfMoorTom wrote:
    Richard Oakley wrote:
    @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
    @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
    @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

    The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

    Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

    The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

    @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

    As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
    Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

    I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

    Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

    By my reckoning, this is where we are:

    An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

    Next season income is:
    Championship TV £3m
    Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
    Sponsorships say £3m
    Last parachute payment £8m
    Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
    Total income = £23.5m

    Next season outgoings
    Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
    Running costs £3.5m

    Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

    Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

    I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

    £35m loss last financial year

    £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
    £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
    £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
    £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
    £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
    £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
    £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
    £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

    Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
    Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

    THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

    Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

    The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

    However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

    With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

    From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

    Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

    Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

    Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

    So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

    Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

    As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

    Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

    Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

    There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
    A rover obsessed dingle :-)
    Thick as a plank :-)
    Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
    Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
    EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
    Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine.

    What a moron.

    Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow.

    STAYING DOWN FOREVER.
    you'r constant obsessive thoughts about blackburn rovers
    your obsessive compulsive urges to repeat yourself
    every day in the hope you will be taken seriously
    you have nothing of any value to say but keep it up
    we will all look forward to you'r next re run of the financial fair play rules"
  • 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

Busy summer ahead for Rovers boss as he balances books

Busy summer ahead for Rovers boss as he balances books

Gary Bowyer

Gary Bowyer

First published in Sport
Last updated

GARY Bowyer says Blackburn Rovers face a ‘big summer’ as they bid to avoid financial fair play sanctions in January – but he expects less transfer activity than a year ago.

The Rovers boss knows he faces a delicate balancing act this summer as he bids to reduce the club’s wage bill again, while bringing in players to improve results.

Rovers have already put six players – Leon Best, DJ Campbell, Dickson Etuhu, David Goodwillie, Alex Marrow and Jordan Slew – on the transfer list and must move on some of their high earners before the Football League’s new financial fair play regulations come into force.

Clubs falling foul of the rules face a transfer embargo from January onwards, and Rovers have been shedding players for some time in preparation for the new regulations.

“It’s going to be a big summer for us because obviously financial fair play comes in,” Bowyer said.

“We’re aware of what we’ve got to do and we’re trying to implement that now.

“We’ve released quite a few players throughout the course of the year, I think it’s been 26 in total.

“We’ve made inroads on that wage bill but we’re not kidding ourselves, we know it’s still got to be addressed.

“But at the same time we’ve got to make sure we’re still competitive, as we were last season.”

Discussions are ongoing between clubs and the Football League over possible changes to the rules, but as things stand Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments.

Rovers have significantly reduced their wage bill by moving on the likes of Danny Murphy, Nuno Gomes, Morten Gamst Pedersen, Gael Givet and Scott Dann in the past 12 months.

But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage.

Bowyer still wants to add players this summer but does not expect the same number of signings as 12 months ago, when the newly appointed manager was reshaping his squad to fit his own ethos.

“Last season I think we brought 14 in during the summer and I don’t think we’ll be doing that again,” he told Rovers Player.

“But we fell short of the play-offs so we feel we need to add a little bit more.”

Bowyer’s plans for next season are already being formulated and he hopes the positivity of a 12-match unbeaten run at the end of the 2013/14 campaign can be retained.

“I’d like to think there’s a lot more positivity about the place at the moment,” he said.

“We still feel there’s a hell of a lot to do both on and off the pitch.

“We’ve laid the foundations for things to progress and hopefully we can do that this summer and go again.

“Going into the final game the message to the players was just win the game.

“It was important because they’re away on holiday now with that feelgood factor, with that 12-game unbeaten run.

“I’ve had four days away with my wife so the season has started now for me.

“As soon as the season finished you’re straight back at it looking at the start of the next one coming.”

Local Businesses

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