Kevin Gallacher column: Deadline day moves strengthen spine of Blackburn Rovers

New  Rovers goalkeeper Jason Steele

New Rovers goalkeeper Jason Steele

First published in Sport by

JUDGING by Gary Bowyer’s transfer deadline day signings it is clear he is still trying to get the backbone of his side right.

A goalkeeper, a centre back and a central midfielder play a key part in forming that backbone and they are the three positions he brought in on Monday.

That’s despite already having an abundance of competition for those places.

With Jason Steele coming in it would look as if Jake Kean and Simon Eastwood are not going to play much of a part in the foreseeable.

Then it’s a question of whether Jason Steele is here to push Paul Robinson or take his place.

That will become clear over the next few months.

Who Gary will play at centre back should also soon become clear because with Shane Duffy coming in, we’ve now got four along with Grant Hanley, Matt Kilgallon and Alex Baptiste.

There are certainly options there – with even more in midfield.

Ryan Tunnicliffe’s signing was a strange one only because Gary seemed to have enough defensive-minded midfielders already.

But for the shape and the way he wants to play, Gary obviously wants to have a look at other players.

And he’s certainly got enough of them in centre midfield now.

Tom Cairney can play there, although he now seems set to play out wide, while Jason Lowe, Lee Williamson, Corry Evans and even Chris Taylor, even though he is more a wide player, can all play in the central two positions.

That’s a lot of players for two places. But, as I’ve said before, it’s important you get the engine room running right as, if it’s not, you’ll be up and down.

And if you do get that right it goes a long way to getting your backbone right. Once Gary does get it correct, it should leave him with a strong side.

But at the moment, at this early stage of the season, it’s not 100 per cent happening yet.

There have been 15 points on offer so far. You need to be averaging 10 but we’re not, we’re at 50 per cent, which is probably where we were last season.

To get more points we’ve got to knock the silly goals that we are conceding on the head.

Some have come about when we’ve sat back and tried to defend a lead and some have come about through lapses in concentration.

Unfortunately one error from one player can lose you a goal.

We’re still trying to get that balance of attacking and scoring properly and not conceding, it’s very difficult and only time will tell if we get there.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:00pm Wed 3 Sep 14

portolibero says...

Don't agree that a CM shouldn't have been a priority. Too many times Bowyer has been forced to play Williamson (playing Cairney out wide, moving Lowe to RB etc), and we all know he's not good enough.

The squad is pretty much there now - there are no excuses if we can't push for promotion this season!
Don't agree that a CM shouldn't have been a priority. Too many times Bowyer has been forced to play Williamson (playing Cairney out wide, moving Lowe to RB etc), and we all know he's not good enough. The squad is pretty much there now - there are no excuses if we can't push for promotion this season! portolibero
  • Score: 20

6:23pm Wed 3 Sep 14

roverstid says...

We've managed to get the positions covered for any injuries and much needed cover in defence - all before FFP kicks in.

Provided Bowyer can start converting the draws to wins we stand a pretty good chance the play-off spots with the team we have at our disposal.

Get some much needed training in lads. Its make or break time and we not ready to call it a day just yet!

RTID.
We've managed to get the positions covered for any injuries and much needed cover in defence - all before FFP kicks in. Provided Bowyer can start converting the draws to wins we stand a pretty good chance the play-off spots with the team we have at our disposal. Get some much needed training in lads. Its make or break time and we not ready to call it a day just yet! RTID. roverstid
  • Score: 25

6:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

owd nick says...

portolibero wrote:
Don't agree that a CM shouldn't have been a priority. Too many times Bowyer has been forced to play Williamson (playing Cairney out wide, moving Lowe to RB etc), and we all know he's not good enough.

The squad is pretty much there now - there are no excuses if we can't push for promotion this season!
Agreed, from what I have read about Tunnicliffe he could be the type of player we have been crying out for, in his own words a "box to box" central midfielder.

I agree with Gallagher's premise that we have an abundance of midfielders, but few of them can play that box to box role effectively, it isn't that GB's signings have all been bad, it's just that they don't always work as expected.

Very few, if any managers get it right first time, every time but every manager worth his salt will do everything possible to strengthen his squad, get the right mix of players in place.

You don't do that in one transfer window, especially following the mess we were in when he took over, so i disagree, I don't think the squad is pretty much there, still too many fringe players who are only going to play if we are desperate.

Also I am not too concerned where Cairney plays, he is pretty effective in most positions across the middle, we shouldn't get hung up on it.
[quote][p][bold]portolibero[/bold] wrote: Don't agree that a CM shouldn't have been a priority. Too many times Bowyer has been forced to play Williamson (playing Cairney out wide, moving Lowe to RB etc), and we all know he's not good enough. The squad is pretty much there now - there are no excuses if we can't push for promotion this season![/p][/quote]Agreed, from what I have read about Tunnicliffe he could be the type of player we have been crying out for, in his own words a "box to box" central midfielder. I agree with Gallagher's premise that we have an abundance of midfielders, but few of them can play that box to box role effectively, it isn't that GB's signings have all been bad, it's just that they don't always work as expected. Very few, if any managers get it right first time, every time but every manager worth his salt will do everything possible to strengthen his squad, get the right mix of players in place. You don't do that in one transfer window, especially following the mess we were in when he took over, so i disagree, I don't think the squad is pretty much there, still too many fringe players who are only going to play if we are desperate. Also I am not too concerned where Cairney plays, he is pretty effective in most positions across the middle, we shouldn't get hung up on it. owd nick
  • Score: 23

8:07pm Wed 3 Sep 14

TurfMoorTom says...

I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite.

Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke.
I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite. Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 9

8:23pm Wed 3 Sep 14

TurfMoor Tom says...

Disgraceful transfer window.

Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one.
Disgraceful transfer window. Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one. TurfMoor Tom
  • Score: -12

9:46pm Wed 3 Sep 14

digitusjonfred says...

Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ?? digitusjonfred
  • Score: 5

9:58pm Wed 3 Sep 14

A Darener says...

digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
To avoid sanction for over-spending, clubs, agents and players have found their short-term fix. It’s called a loan.


Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/sport/footbal
l/article-2740030/Wh
y-big-clubs-love-loa
n-deal-deadline-day-
Radamel-Falcao-Javie
r-Hernandez-Co-make-
short-term-moves.htm
l#ixzz3CHwgrMN3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]To avoid sanction for over-spending, clubs, agents and players have found their short-term fix. It’s called a loan. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/sport/footbal l/article-2740030/Wh y-big-clubs-love-loa n-deal-deadline-day- Radamel-Falcao-Javie r-Hernandez-Co-make- short-term-moves.htm l#ixzz3CHwgrMN3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook A Darener
  • Score: 2

10:18pm Wed 3 Sep 14

roverstid says...

TurfMoor Tom wrote:
Disgraceful transfer window.

Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one.
You know, when you comment right under the real account, ultimately you ending up looking a bigger fool than we already know you are souper clartits.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoor Tom[/bold] wrote: Disgraceful transfer window. Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one.[/p][/quote]You know, when you comment right under the real account, ultimately you ending up looking a bigger fool than we already know you are souper clartits. roverstid
  • Score: 6

11:44pm Wed 3 Sep 14

noddy57 says...

whatever the outcome of this season we have to accept that this squad is Gary Bowyers and if he fails to deliver this time The Venkys will either appoint "say" Malky mckay or pull out all together and cut their losses. Hopefully the former .
whatever the outcome of this season we have to accept that this squad is Gary Bowyers and if he fails to deliver this time The Venkys will either appoint "say" Malky mckay or pull out all together and cut their losses. Hopefully the former . noddy57
  • Score: 1

12:05am Thu 4 Sep 14

owd nick says...

digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial
fairplay.co.uk/finan
cial-fair-play-expla
ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
[quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts. owd nick
  • Score: 4

7:19am Thu 4 Sep 14

Warnie says...

I'm afraid that FFP could not care less how strong the teams spine is Kevin. In addition, the attempted research above was a noble effort but sadly no cigar. You are in for one hell of a ride. Hold on tight.
I'm afraid that FFP could not care less how strong the teams spine is Kevin. In addition, the attempted research above was a noble effort but sadly no cigar. You are in for one hell of a ride. Hold on tight. Warnie
  • Score: -4

8:21am Thu 4 Sep 14

Rovers 1495 says...

"Unfortunately one error from one player can lose you a goal"

Exactly, don't ever play Williamson again
"Unfortunately one error from one player can lose you a goal" Exactly, don't ever play Williamson again Rovers 1495
  • Score: 5

8:54am Thu 4 Sep 14

TurfMoor Tom says...

owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial

fairplay.co.uk/finan

cial-fair-play-expla

ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle.

The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it.

We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction.

My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One.

Sad but completely necessary.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle. The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it. We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction. My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One. Sad but completely necessary. TurfMoor Tom
  • Score: -5

9:20am Thu 4 Sep 14

Mr Ted Maul says...

roverstid wrote:
TurfMoor Tom wrote:
Disgraceful transfer window.

Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one.
You know, when you comment right under the real account, ultimately you ending up looking a bigger fool than we already know you are souper clartits.
Indeed. This Superclaret/Claretce
rt/lookupblackburn troll is none too bright.

If you at each of its posts as a cry for help they make more sense.

What a deeply sad little man he must be.
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoor Tom[/bold] wrote: Disgraceful transfer window. Bowyer will ultimately walk for his failure to strengthen us sufficiently during the transfer window ahead of the single most testing period in our entire history. FFP is going to tear us a new one.[/p][/quote]You know, when you comment right under the real account, ultimately you ending up looking a bigger fool than we already know you are souper clartits.[/p][/quote]Indeed. This Superclaret/Claretce rt/lookupblackburn troll is none too bright. If you at each of its posts as a cry for help they make more sense. What a deeply sad little man he must be. Mr Ted Maul
  • Score: 3

9:59am Thu 4 Sep 14

owd nick says...

TurfMoor Tom wrote:
owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial


fairplay.co.uk/finan


cial-fair-play-expla


ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle.

The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it.

We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction.

My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One.

Sad but completely necessary.
I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception.

Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses.

That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off.

Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season.

The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely.

Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one.

Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point.

Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season.

Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season.

Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required.

That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season.

FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season.

Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so.

Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity.

Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoor Tom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle. The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it. We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction. My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One. Sad but completely necessary.[/p][/quote]I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception. Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses. That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off. Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season. The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely. Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one. Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point. Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season. Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season. Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required. That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season. FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season. Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so. Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity. Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more. owd nick
  • Score: 7

10:40am Thu 4 Sep 14

earwego says...

owd nick wrote:
TurfMoor Tom wrote:
owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial



fairplay.co.uk/finan



cial-fair-play-expla



ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle.

The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it.

We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction.

My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One.

Sad but completely necessary.
I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception.

Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses.

That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off.

Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season.

The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely.

Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one.

Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point.

Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season.

Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season.

Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required.

That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season.

FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season.

Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so.

Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity.

Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more.
The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period).
Interesting,"future reporting period"
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoor Tom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle. The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it. We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction. My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One. Sad but completely necessary.[/p][/quote]I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception. Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses. That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off. Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season. The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely. Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one. Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point. Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season. Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season. Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required. That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season. FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season. Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so. Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity. Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more.[/p][/quote]The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period). Interesting,"future reporting period" earwego
  • Score: 0

10:47am Thu 4 Sep 14

A Darener says...

I don't think even the powers that be understand FFP!
I don't think even the powers that be understand FFP! A Darener
  • Score: 5

11:53am Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

Why could nt Bowyer work out 3months ago that without Keane the defence had no backbone ???? I think this is turning into a shambles .
Why could nt Bowyer work out 3months ago that without Keane the defence had no backbone ???? I think this is turning into a shambles . darwen1946
  • Score: -1

11:55am Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

roverstid wrote:
We've managed to get the positions covered for any injuries and much needed cover in defence - all before FFP kicks in.

Provided Bowyer can start converting the draws to wins we stand a pretty good chance the play-off spots with the team we have at our disposal.

Get some much needed training in lads. Its make or break time and we not ready to call it a day just yet!

RTID.
CONVERT DRAWS DRAWS INTO WINS ? Losses into draws would be a good start !!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: We've managed to get the positions covered for any injuries and much needed cover in defence - all before FFP kicks in. Provided Bowyer can start converting the draws to wins we stand a pretty good chance the play-off spots with the team we have at our disposal. Get some much needed training in lads. Its make or break time and we not ready to call it a day just yet! RTID.[/p][/quote]CONVERT DRAWS DRAWS INTO WINS ? Losses into draws would be a good start !!!!!!!! darwen1946
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

LOL We now have 5 goalkeepers . Perhaps this will stop the other side scoring !!!!!
LOL We now have 5 goalkeepers . Perhaps this will stop the other side scoring !!!!! darwen1946
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him .
We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him . darwen1946
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him .
We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him . darwen1946
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him .
We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him . darwen1946
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Thu 4 Sep 14

darwen1946 says...

We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him .
We really needed to find cover for Brown who was supposed to be cover for Gestede lol Hes too busy counting his pension pot ! I bet he could nt believe his luck when Rovers signed him . darwen1946
  • Score: -1

12:54pm Thu 4 Sep 14

owd nick says...

earwego wrote:
owd nick wrote:
TurfMoor Tom wrote:
owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial




fairplay.co.uk/finan




cial-fair-play-expla




ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle.

The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it.

We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction.

My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One.

Sad but completely necessary.
I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception.

Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses.

That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off.

Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season.

The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely.

Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one.

Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point.

Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season.

Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season.

Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required.

That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season.

FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season.

Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so.

Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity.

Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more.
The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period).
Interesting,"future reporting period"
Future reporting periods are 12 months, I assume that would depend on when the clubs annual reports are normally declared?

To be honest I don't know when Rovers or for that matter any other club does this, the start of each season for the previous one perhaps? Or 1st August to 30th July?

If that's the case then potential sanctions could run from January to January, splitting consecutive seasons in two because the club don't need to submit accounts until the 1st December each year and sanctions aren't imposed until January 1st each year.
[quote][p][bold]earwego[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoor Tom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Sadly we havent got a leg to stand on as we, like all other clubs, were given a very generous 2 year period during which to make the necessary cuts to become self financing. Unfortunately the Venkys, being blinded by the lure of Premier League money, gambled massively and continued to spend following our relegation. Those two years have now passed and we are in an awful mess. Our losses are bordering on the ridiculous with many predicting a far worse set of accounts than last years debacle. The simple fact is that FFP is now here. In December our punishment will be announced and as proven with other clubs, in particular giants like Man City and PSG, there is no way around it. We have now to pay up for years and years of gross overspending and our club will be in a much poorer state as a result. We will however still have a club to follow which in the long run is why this is a good thing. If Venkys are permitted to continued racking up such obscene losses then without FFP we would ultimately drop through the leagues due to admibistration and points deduction. My view is that when the dust settles in two seasons time we will be rebuilding from scratch in League One. Sad but completely necessary.[/p][/quote]I don't normally reply to the idiot troll but in this case I will make an exception. Rovers will be judged on the losses calculated for last season once exceptions have been removed, Venky's will be allowed to negatively invest up to £8 million in a share issue to offset some of those losses. That basically means that £8 million of the losses incurred will be directly transferred from the club to Venky's, in effect written off. Past spending and debts, excessive or otherwise, do not form part of any sanctions, because the first season affected by FFP is the 2013 -14 season. The club is allowed to present it's case and challenge any sanctions but it does need to be very careful if it chooses to do so as the sanctions could be increased if the appeal fails, which is most likely. Sanctions will be in the form of fines "For clubs that overspend to gain promotion to the PL". What a stupid paragraph to put in what is in affect a legal document, a first year law student would probably have a field day with that one. Any fines levied as such are likely to be suspended based on future performance, aka Man City and PSG. The precedent has been set, although whether or not the FA will accept that precedent is a mute point. Or a transfer ban, there is no description that I can find anywhere that specifies the form or duration of such a sanction, and I have gone back as far as 2012 documentation, it's clear that Rovers will not be able to escape an embargo but I suspect that it will only cover the next transfer window or more than likely to the end of this season. Which is when Rovers will present their financial performance for the 2014 - 15 season, deduct allowed exceptions and the FA will compare the figures to FFP requirements once again, referring to and measuring against the 2013 - 14 season. Revised sanctions will be applied in January 2016 if required. That I suspect is why the club have taken the financial hit of paying off all the deadwood before the start of this season, the club will be able to demonstrate that it is better managed financially at the end of the 2014 - 15 season. FFP doesn't exist to put clubs like Rovers out of business, much as you would like it to, FFP exists to ensure clubs operate in profit at best or within agreed minimum financial loss targets season on season at worst, and once a club hits it's break even targets or starts to make a profit the owners can begin to positively invest again, which with a bit of luck I suspect will be the 2015 - 16 season. Which is what Derek Shaw and GB have been alluding to for the last 12 months or so. Happy to discuss or argue the above properly with interested real Rovers or even Burnley fans, but I won't reply to the troll again irrespective of it's choice of identity. Again it's only my interpretation based on what I have been able to investigate since I first became interested in the subject at the start of this season, that is why my stance on FFP has changed over recent weeks I am beginning to understand it more.[/p][/quote]The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period). Interesting,"future reporting period"[/p][/quote]Future reporting periods are 12 months, I assume that would depend on when the clubs annual reports are normally declared? To be honest I don't know when Rovers or for that matter any other club does this, the start of each season for the previous one perhaps? Or 1st August to 30th July? If that's the case then potential sanctions could run from January to January, splitting consecutive seasons in two because the club don't need to submit accounts until the 1st December each year and sanctions aren't imposed until January 1st each year. owd nick
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 4 Sep 14

noddy57 says...

All you mugs from down the road thinking your club is going places " need to keep it real" its alright spouting off about being in the premiership ! the hard bit is staying there. there is more chance of Adolf Hitler being found alive in a nursing home than you staying up.C O Y B.
All you mugs from down the road thinking your club is going places " need to keep it real" its alright spouting off about being in the premiership ! the hard bit is staying there. there is more chance of Adolf Hitler being found alive in a nursing home than you staying up.C O Y B. noddy57
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Thu 4 Sep 14

fitz808 says...

darwen1946 wrote:
Why could nt Bowyer work out 3months ago that without Keane the defence had no backbone ???? I think this is turning into a shambles .
what does that even mean? what else could have happened to ensure we kept keane? (which is what i assume you are getting at?)
[quote][p][bold]darwen1946[/bold] wrote: Why could nt Bowyer work out 3months ago that without Keane the defence had no backbone ???? I think this is turning into a shambles .[/p][/quote]what does that even mean? what else could have happened to ensure we kept keane? (which is what i assume you are getting at?) fitz808
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 4 Sep 14

TurfMoorTom says...

noddy57 wrote:
All you mugs from down the road thinking your club is going places " need to keep it real" its alright spouting off about being in the premiership ! the hard bit is staying there. there is more chance of Adolf Hitler being found alive in a nursing home than you staying up.C O Y B.
To be fair he'd have to be having a threesome with Marilyn Monroe and Elvis.
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: All you mugs from down the road thinking your club is going places " need to keep it real" its alright spouting off about being in the premiership ! the hard bit is staying there. there is more chance of Adolf Hitler being found alive in a nursing home than you staying up.C O Y B.[/p][/quote]To be fair he'd have to be having a threesome with Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 2

10:12pm Thu 4 Sep 14

digitusjonfred says...

owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial

fairplay.co.uk/finan

cial-fair-play-expla

ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Many thanks for the info, we have not heard much of it here in OZ.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Many thanks for the info, we have not heard much of it here in OZ. digitusjonfred
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Thu 4 Sep 14

digitusjonfred says...

A Darener wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
To avoid sanction for over-spending, clubs, agents and players have found their short-term fix. It’s called a loan.


Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/sport/footbal

l/article-2740030/Wh

y-big-clubs-love-loa

n-deal-deadline-day-

Radamel-Falcao-Javie

r-Hernandez-Co-make-

short-term-moves.htm

l#ixzz3CHwgrMN3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Just asking mate !!
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]To avoid sanction for over-spending, clubs, agents and players have found their short-term fix. It’s called a loan. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/sport/footbal l/article-2740030/Wh y-big-clubs-love-loa n-deal-deadline-day- Radamel-Falcao-Javie r-Hernandez-Co-make- short-term-moves.htm l#ixzz3CHwgrMN3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]Just asking mate !! digitusjonfred
  • Score: 0

12:00am Fri 5 Sep 14

owd nick says...

digitusjonfred wrote:
owd nick wrote:
digitusjonfred wrote:
Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??
Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when.

Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last.

http://www.financial


fairplay.co.uk/finan


cial-fair-play-expla


ined.php

There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level".

For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro.

That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts.

Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do.

Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged.

However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side.

And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.
Many thanks for the info, we have not heard much of it here in OZ.
NP, I suspect this next season and possibly the next is going to be pretty painful for all Rovers fans.

On a lighter note, had a look at the BRSANZ site via Twitter, excellent guys, can us poor sods from "oop north" join? :-), wouldn't mind the mug and I know of one troll who would buy at least 12 just to keep his current multiple ID's happy, he wouldn't want to upset one would he?, Just in case it developed a brain cell of it's own and outnumbered his by 100%.
[quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digitusjonfred[/bold] wrote: Kevin is right about a solid spine BUT what happens to the loan players when this FFP comes in ??[/p][/quote]Simple answer is we don't know because it's all dependent on how losses are measured and what sanctions are applied, if any, and when. Check this link out for an analysis of FFP, you can follow the embedded links if you would like to see the whole document if you want to, I have, it certainly isn't light reading, but the article itself is a pretty good synopsis and it looks to have been updated since I read it last. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php There are a few key phrases such as "UEFA understand that because players are often on long contracts and clubs cannot reduce their spending quickly. For this reason the permitted Break Even deficit is set at a fairly high level". For UEFA that limit is set at 45 million euro. That paragraph would apply to Rovers if they were still in the PL but I cannot find a similar paragraph in the FA's version, that is a potential challenge point for Rovers regarding the pay offs they have made over the last 18 months or so plus the fact they still have at least two players, Robinson and Best, still on PL level contracts. Rovers are aware of the issues regarding FFP, no doubt about that but the fact they insisted on holding onto Rhodes and invest in the squad suggests they have been talking to the FA as to where they currently stand within FFP, and what they can, or cannot do. Again that's just speculation on my part, just as it is with anyone else who has an opinion,because we really don't know until we see the actual figures and any rulings by the FA, and any rulings can be challenged. However, if as I suspect Rovers have been discussion the issue of FFP with the FA there shouldn't be any surprises from either side. And before the idiot troll jumps in FFP is all about current losses, not past debts.[/p][/quote]Many thanks for the info, we have not heard much of it here in OZ.[/p][/quote]NP, I suspect this next season and possibly the next is going to be pretty painful for all Rovers fans. On a lighter note, had a look at the BRSANZ site via Twitter, excellent guys, can us poor sods from "oop north" join? :-), wouldn't mind the mug and I know of one troll who would buy at least 12 just to keep his current multiple ID's happy, he wouldn't want to upset one would he?, Just in case it developed a brain cell of it's own and outnumbered his by 100%. owd nick
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Fri 5 Sep 14

tall in the saddle says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite.

Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke.
Complete prat. What's this got go do with Burnley? Can't resist can you in any of your many guises. As it happens Burnley bave three lads in the U-23's. How many have you got? No dont answer.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite. Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke.[/p][/quote]Complete prat. What's this got go do with Burnley? Can't resist can you in any of your many guises. As it happens Burnley bave three lads in the U-23's. How many have you got? No dont answer. tall in the saddle
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Fri 5 Sep 14

tall in the saddle says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite.

Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke.
Complete prat. What's this got go do with Burnley? Can't resist can you in any of your many guises. As it happens Burnley bave three lads in the U-23's. How many have you got? No dont answer.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I think a central midfield general is all that's missing. As much as I like him, Evans doesn't seem to have enough weight or bite. Just settling down to watch full international football as King and his chums take on England. Can't see any Bumleh players on show. Come to think of it, I don't remember one genuine enquiry for any Bumleh players last transfer window which was supposed to be after the best performance from the best Dingle team in living memory. Only players running away from the club back to Howe in Bournemouth or simply because they couldn't be bothered to come back while numerous Championship players rejected their advances. What a joke.[/p][/quote]Complete prat. What's this got go do with Burnley? Can't resist can you in any of your many guises. As it happens Burnley bave three lads in the U-23's. How many have you got? No dont answer. tall in the saddle
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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