Leaderboard

New money is so vulgar.

Buy the club; lose a lot of money; sell the club is one option. Buy the club; lose a lot of money; sell the assets; wind-up the club is another. I wouldn't see any chance of success for any non fan-led acquisition of the 15ers largely because of the strength of the Bristol Sport business model which has been introduced by SL. He has control of the largest (by far) football team with the most well established academy, Premiership rugby team, Women's Football team and Basketball team. No doubt, over time we'll see the likes of field hockey, netball, ice hockey and other sports added to the portfolio. The revenue raised by Bristol Sport will continue to increase year on year which will feed back into the provision of better training and supporter facilities.We are part of a model unlike any other in the country and I'm very pleased that we are - because I'd hate to be stuck on the outside, looking in and head-butting the windows. The likelihood of Rovers being able to break out of their current malaise is going to extremely difficult to achieve in a city not renowned for its support of sporting endeavour. An outside investor will have to try to counter that but they will find themselves in an uphill battle. Their team has an ever ageing supporter demographic with fewer youngsters joining its ranks to offset the natural loss of support at the other end of the age scale. Thus income gradually diminishes whilst, on the other side of town, their monolithic rival continues to grow. Any new stadium they build would have limited use other than on match days - concert and corporate venues being preferred at the council owned arena, when it's built (yeah right) or at the arena already planned for construction at AG. An investor coming in to Rovers would want to do exactly what SL has already done - and this town ain't big enough for two Bristol Sports!

I'm not 100% clear on the EFL rules for this but it would be allowed in the Premier League. I've also been a bit nervous about Villa forecasting this as it will allow them to write off a substantial amount of any loss.

Why have you always got to be so bloody negative !

@just like watching brazil Yes this also OK. Take the Metropolitan line from Ruislip to Baker Street, it's about a 20 minute slow walk from there, or you can change there onto the Jubilee line and go one stop to St John's Wood which is less than 10 minutes slow walk to Lords

All EFL and Prem clubs have to have an accounting year of End of May, June or July.

Thanks, had a feeling it was something like that. Chelsea had they not made CL this year- given their reliance on player sales or profit on player transactions, utilisation of the academy to these ends etc, might have been an interesting one for failing FFP- Arsenal- Arsenal- of all sides- maybe too. Saw a graphic in January that suggested that they could be losing £90m or something (before allowances granted) this season as a projected figure. Or not? Internet is a funny thing, all sorts on there!

Yeah it's the UEFA rules. They're two independent codes of conduct but its just that the UEFA one is mainly administered by the PL (who have no actual say in the rules themselves).

One thing that you might find slightly interesting is that the UEFA have their FFP rules which are different to the Premier League (as you're aware). UEFA sets the rules and each nation has a licensing body, which is the Premier League in England. Any team that wishes to compete in a European competition has to submit a number of reports through the UEFA portal to show that they are in compliance with these rules. All clubs are encouraged to submit these documents to UEFA regardless of their league position but in reality it would only be beneficial for any clubs with a shot of getting into CL/EL in April. These documents are submitted through the portal but are actually detail reviewed and audited by the Premier League (or whoever the local licensing body is). If the test is passed, the club are then issued with the UEFA license. If there are any issues, such as Man City/PSG, UEFA will then step in.

Or relegate one less from PL

I've also heard this

We all thought that the new rules, with projected accounts, was going to allow points deduction during the same season and thereby deny offenders promotion. If forecast sales are allowed, then if a club has a financial year ending in the summer ( as I guess Villa's does) , and after the transfer window opens, then it hands them an advantage( for ffp purposes) over other clubs whose year ends are end of March or the end of the tax year, for example, as those other clubs cannot project sales as they have no window available before then do father financial year. If they are going to allow forecast sales then it seems they need to standardise the financial year ends of every club, so that no one gains an advantage. The better solution is that they don't allow forecast sales, as if a club carried out proper management accounts and controls, they should be well aware if they are in danger of breaching ffp well before the third year. If so, and they need to sell players to avoid breaching then they have a summer and winter window available to make sales and that should be more than enough! As you suggested, perhaps the EFL needs to appoint OTIB as it's ffp consultants and we can draw up a new set of rules that are robust, fit for purpose and can do the job for which they are designed. We could also draw up a special set of punishments for clubs we don't like and who think they have a special sense of entitlement.

That was pretty much my point a few weeks ago. If Villa gave included a forecast sale of Grealish, then they should be bound by it imho. If they don’t sale (because they’ve gone up) then in effect there losses are bigger and they should be denied promotion.

Talk about a moving target! If you are allowed to include the forecast sale of a player(s) then in theory every club could put in the forecast sale of their most valuable player to offset losses that would otherwise take them over the ffp limit. Given the EFL's diligence if said player was not subsequently sold then nothing would happen. If they used Derby's valuer, then we could forecast the sale of Pato for £50m, be well within ffp limits and could afford to buy Harry Kane! Anyone else getting the impression that the ffp rules are not worth the paper on which they are written?

Would probably want to drop a bomb on it. That's what they do.

Excellent comment I saw from what I assume to be a Birmingham fan on a Guardian comment- media have been pretty pathetic, as per- but that is exactly the questions media should be asking.

Cant see 'US' having an interest, why the **** would we be interested in that lot?

Which isn't a period of time. Its a distance ?

my uncle thinks they are close to a deal with a US deal, god knows where he heard it from, but he's not usually the gossipy type, but wouldn't say anything else, so who knows,

Possible unexpected expenditure in year to date and/or newly uncovered liabilities, i.e. the few non-tented areas of the stadium constructed of asbestos or the training colony site deemed an area of outstanding natural beauty or a disused nuclear fuel dump – just saying!!

I'm sure that the capital plus a few camels will do, but 11 camels would leave them without a team to start next season ?

Asset strip? I thought the definition of an asset is something worth having so let me see; 1) Santa's grotto. Only if Freddie Krueger was making another horror movie. 2) Colony Field. That's so overgrown. That could be registered as a town and village green. 3) Chernobyl. They have more use for the tents so the half a stand and cricket pavilion could be flattened and turned into a permanent circus.

There's something else at the root of this. And I don't know what it is. Their loss for the year should actually be lower than previous years as they had player sales (Matty to us and somebody to Ipswich); they were ticking along at about £1.6m ignoring UWE write-offs so maybe £1.2m, £1.3m. Their best, or rather least worst, results for several years. The loan facility had another £5m added to it which IIRC left them covered for about three years' trading losses from now. There is no reason for their 17/18 accounts to look bad, they should look (relatively) good. Whatever else has been going on may not be revealed if it's fallen through so it could be that at their 11 June AGM they sign off on a reasonable set of accounts and that's that. No explanation required for the two month delay or some guff trotted out (the audit partner left his homework on the bus). I'm not expecting any big reveal or bad news in their accounts. I think anyone who is will be disappointed.

There were some out of date apple ones.

I rang the gas ticket line asking for a ticket in row m in their new stand the girl on the phone said “ we don’t have a row m” I asked her to check with her supervisor he confirmed they don’t have a row m!

Why just the ground, what is to stop an owner adding to his souvenier colllection and buying a club ashtray for £m,s if he wanted to?