I'd love to see him take them down. I think,m actually, I might have more dislike for Lambert than Allardyce. Which is saying something.
Discuss all things Rovers related except...
Lambert actually lied to our faces I suppose. Sam made me want to dig my own eyes out with a biro as well as being deluded about his own importance. Both can get stuffed. Souness is the last manager other than Bowyer I had any real liking for. I never really liked Hughes that much frankly.
And Lambert actually walked out cause he thought he was too good. At least Allardyce stuck with the task when he had it.Ethiaa wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:07 amLambert actually lied to our faces I suppose. Sam made me want to dig my own eyes out with a biro as well as being deluded about his own importance. Both can get stuffed. Souness is the last manager other than Bowyer I had any real liking for. I never really liked Hughes that much frankly.
I can't say I have any strong feelings about Lambert. It just surprised me that he was hailed as some kind of managerial messiah by the section of our fanbase who usually want to write people off before they start. It still seems a bit random to me...
- Promising manager
- Posts: 17159
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
- Location: Location: Location
It's completely in keeping with a mindset that forms an opinion in advance of having any solid evidence, two sides of the same coin.
I think this post is going to crap and I've not even read it.
That's a fair comment about Celtic. I've always liked him and was quite pleased with the appointment as I wasn't particularly a fan of Coyle and think Mowbray represents a step up. I liked his WBA side and the way he wants his teams to play football. I'm also a big believer in how temporal football management can be unless you're dealing with managers like Pep, Conte, Ancelotti and sometimes a manger just gets things right with a certain team at a certain time having been less successful elsewhere.Rover the Top wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:12 amMowbray's record is decent just looking purely at the numbers. If you look deeper, his time at Celtic looks disappointing given their superiority in Scotland. But then it was probably good going to win as many as he lost in a tough job at Coventry. I don't think he's a bad manager, I was surprised by the negativity at his appointment. But he's walked into a tough job that will be hard to come out of with brilliant stats. If he keeps us up I think he'll deserve a lot of praise.
I've thought for most of the season that it'll be two of us, Wigan and Burton joining Rotherham in going down. But Lambert seems to be working his magic at Wolves and Bristol City are also in freefall. We could survive...
I'm not getting ahead of myself but there has clearly been a positive impact with the players who are speaking in glowing terms about him and so far we've got results on the pitch so hopefully that continues and the feel good factor can spread into the fans too.
I'm only left wondering what BRFCs now think about Coyle's relegation bonus he won't get...
Just read a summary of the rules and had a quick look at the club's trading company's balance sheet for the year ended 30 June 2016. Without reviewing the full rules and all relevant sets of accounts, as I note the previous 2 financial years and current financial year are assessed, a generous new owner could potentially:Ethiaa wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:14 pmdoz_magic_man wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:05 pmBecause a new owner would presumably have to pay off at least some of the Venky's debt in order to acquire the club? I haven't read the FFP rules, but if we're debt free or in minimal debt, we can presumably start buying some players again? Anyway, it's all conjecture and Venky's are obviously sticking around for the foreseeable future.
No mate, it doesn't work like that. The debt level is irrelevant. It's all about profit/loss RIGHT NOW which is why boycotting games hurts the club so much and is counterproductive. We could be in 4 billion of debt and have it wiped out by a new owner but without new revenue streams or reduced expenditure then nothing changes in terms of investment allowed. Likewise we could have 100 trillion of debt but if we were making more profit, we could spend more. You should probably check out the FFP rules.
- clear a significant proportion of the c.£112m debt (which the new owner would presumably have to do to wrestle control from Venky's);
- reduce the c.£147m called up share capital into distributable reserves (boosting the P&L account);
- make a fresh equity investment for new shares in the trading company; and
- put a profit making susidiary underneath the trading company and dividend profits up (which would neither be a loan nor an equity injection), rendering the trading company profitable if dividends were significant enough. If so, the 3-year average maximum permissible loss (£39m I believe and which I suspect we are way over) could be counter-balanced in the next financial year. If a club enjoys a bumper year, then why should it be held back going forward by previous poor years?
All this is obviously predicated on a very wealthy and generous group acquiring the club, but is theoretically possible. However, nobody in their right mind will inject potentially hundreds of millions into a bottom tier Championship club, hence we are probably fucked. However, I would rather see somebody own the club who knows what they're doing and there's an argument to "do a Rangers".