Fao Sidney1st - re Blackburn accounts

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:28 pm

Sidney.........Trying to make sense of the latest accounts released by Venky's London Ltd to y/e Mar'16.

Under the impression that this was the company set up by Venky's to cover all activities of BRFC, but the auditors claim that BRFC are only a subsiduary of the parent company and indeed have different year ends. One alarming stat for Blackburn fans is that the latest info indicates that Venky's have invested loans of £121.2 million to BRFC.

So the question is........What other involvement do Venky's London have other than BRFC ?

BRFC accounts to Jun'15 show a wage bill of £34.5 million whereas Venky's London to Mar'15 was £30.5 million ( £28.2 million to Mar'16).

And to think they've offloaded their high earners........shudder to think what the others earn!!

Our wage bill to Jun'16 will be less than their £28.2m which is a scary thought for them.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:59 pm

So what happens next?

The Venky company goes bankrupt and Blackburn are debt free?

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:10 pm

Good question Quickenthetempo...........We need to know more about Venky's London Ltd, perhaps Sidney1st (or anyone?) has an answer.

Obviously Venkateshrawa Hatcheries Ltd in Pune have overall control but we're not too fussed how many chickens they sell in India.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:13 pm

As I understood it, VLL are a holding company so that if Rovers go bump then the debt remains within the U.K., and creditors can't go any further chasing for monies owed? I don't think VLL have any other subsidiary companies, and it's the 'sporting arm' of Venkateshwara Hatcheries PVT.

Not sure the reason for the different year ends mind, but I suspect it's to fall in line with all of the other group companies of Vekateshwara Hatcheries PVT Ltd, which have 31st March as year end. All football clubs in the U.K. (?) now have their year end in June?

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:21 pm

Pretty much as I thought Claretforever........apart from the different figures released for last year.....e.g :-

BRFC wages to Jun'15.......£34.5 million

VLL wages to Mar'15.......£30.5 million

Turnover also is very different.

Perhaps it is just the three months adjustment as you suggest, although I'm not convinced, but whichever way the figures are frightening if you're Saxo or any of his mates.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:32 pm

Think there is a thread on BRFC.com in which it was confirmed that its just a holding company for Venkys sporting interests in the Uk (ie Blackburn Rovers)

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:34 pm

All I care about is what happens on the field. Couldn't care less about debt..

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:38 pm

Yeah, well that is the Rovers fans mindset in a nutshell.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:39 pm

Not worrying about off field stuff is probably what Swindon fans thought in 1990 when they'd just won the play off final to get to the top tier.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:39 pm

Cheers Lancaster......I'll take a look at that.

For comparison purposes we still await the Burnley accounts to Jun'16, but VLL are showing a wage bill of £28.2 million to Mar'16 in a year when they shifted Gestede and Rhodes.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah, well that is the Rovers fans mindset in a nutshell.

I'm a football expert, not a finance guru.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:43 pm

Graham and Stokes wouldn't have been cheap, and the wage bill does mean the players they sell each year just cover the losses (or close to it).

Thats not a viable long term strategy, though their youth set up is light years ahead of ours and is producing players. But is that their long term strategy?

They will never get their money back.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:44 pm

Neither am I Saxo, but I understand that it has to be run as a business first and foremost.

Its not palatable to a lot of people, but its the reason we are in the prem and you are in deep ****.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:45 pm

Who cares?

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:45 pm

That's correct, they're still cat.1, which is costing Venky's £2.5m per annum to maintain, something the Blackburn fans conveniently forget.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:46 pm

You don't, you support Liverpool now.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:47 pm

Not arsed. Financial threads? Yawn..

If rovers go to the wall, so be it. I've seen them do everything a club of its size could realistically hope to achieve and massively enjoyed those times. Maybe time to move on anyway and do other things in life.

We'll have all moved on and you'll be a team without a proper rival to boast over.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:54 pm

"Not arsed. Financial threads? Yawn.."

No worries, keep off them then.
You were the one on the other thread telling us all your high earners have been moved on and yet you still have a wage bill over £28 million. How much do the rubbing rags earn?......£30k per week?

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:00 pm

You're wasting your time with him Roy TBH...

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:01 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:You're wasting your time with him Roy TBH...

Yep..

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:06 pm

Aye you're right randomclaret.

Bring back loadsamoney and bigmoon, at least you could have a decent debate with them.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:07 pm

Aye proper fans that disappeared from the boards not long after losing top flight status..

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:22 pm

Saxoman wrote:All I care about is what happens on the field. Couldn't care less about debt..

That pretty much sums up the entire Rovers fan base from the 1990's onwards as they bought the title and bought the League Cup, plus their Premier League status, with circa £120m(think £500m now with football style inflation) being wiped clean by Jack Walker and the Walker Trust, whilst maintaining a squad they couldn't naturally have been able to afford.

Oh well, I'm sure they'll have lots of new ears to talk to in League One about those times: "Yeah, he got his cheque book out and BAM! we bought the title!"

Most fans laugh at what Blackburn have supposedly achieved, as the majority of their history is littered with benefactor led success and illegal or immoral activity regarding player payments and bribery attempts etc. They're a joke club with a joke past.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:27 pm

Without a mega bucks TV deal you wouldn't have success naturally going off gate recipts and merchandise sales..

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:28 pm

I go out to the cinema and come back to this

Claretforever is the better person to ask about this, I'm not clued up completely on their accounts, I have the odd read of the accounts of various clubs for a bit of a laugh when I'm on FB.

I understand margins, budgets, profit and losses from my past as a manager for a couple of different national motor factors, but Rovers books are just a mess.

I'm still struggling to understand why Rovers are losing so much money, I can only guess they're paying players to much money, in excess of £20k a week.
They need to drop that to £5k a week or less to have a chance of getting things under control.
A spell in league one might actually be good for them in the long run, in regards to getting things under control financially.

I think they've got another 4-5 players out of contract in the summer, plus the loan players to send home.
Depending on what league they're in, their transfer efforts the summer are going to be well worth paying attention too.

Rovers fans like to bang on about how good their academy is, but what they aren't contemplating is the very real possibility that a number of that youth team will have to step up to the first team next season.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:32 pm

Saxoman wrote:Without a mega bucks TV deal you wouldn't have success naturally going off gate recipts and merchandise sales..

Without careful running by the board these last few years we wouldn't have got into the PL to get that money.
All that time Rovers fans, and other clubs, mocked the wage bill at Burnley, the small amounts paid for players, the state of Gawthorpe etc and now Rovers, Bolton, PNE, Blackpool etc haven't got a pot to **** in between them.

Brighton owe Bloom £150 million he announced recently, they also pay rent on the Amex and their training ground.
Cardiff are in similar debt to Tan.

To many clubs in the championship are falling over themselves to pay stupid wages to average players

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:33 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Rovers fans like to bang on about how good their academy is, but what they aren't contemplating is the very real possibility that a number of that youth team will have to step up to the first team next season.

An interesting prospect. Far more thrilling than paying to watch ageing journeymen.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:36 pm

Saxoman wrote:An interesting prospect. Far more thrilling than paying to watch ageing journeymen.

Possibly, but there's also the prospect they'll get absolutely smashed week in, week out.

Toxic atmosphere, owners who aren't communicating, manager who looks at his wits end sometimes.
Hardly a place for young players to develop.

They're better off popping down the road to our place when its finished.

Shore claret · Post by **Shore claret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:36 pm

Saxoman wrote:I'm a football expert, not a finance guru.

I'm just picking myself up off the floor, you think your a football expert?

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:38 pm

Shore claret wrote:I'm just picking myself up off the floor, you think your a football expert?

I thought someone would have picked up on that before your post..

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:43 pm

Saxoman wrote: Far more thrilling than paying to watch ageing journeymen.

But that wouldn't apply to you, as you don't even watch them!

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:46 pm

Leisure wrote:But that wouldn't apply to you, as you don't even watch them!

Don't need to, BBC stats tell me how sh*t we are under coyle..

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:49 pm

Saxoman wrote:Without a mega bucks TV deal you wouldn't have success naturally going off gate recipts and merchandise sales..

Big difference between our clubs at this point. Without needing to go into the finer detail of how a business runs, and the ups and downs of cash flow, Rovers used money that they simply could not have afforded naturally, did not earn normally, and would not have been able to access via normal means, much less pay back. Totally different to Burnley, as despite debts (ups and downs for us), we've only ever been a couple of player sales from staving off the bank manager.

When Rovers were turning over £2-6m they were losing £6-8m per season. Rovers have LOST £223m(June2015) on their P&L during the Premier League era. To compare, Burnley have a POSITIVE £5.2m on our P&L for the same period.

We earned the right to be there and by running our business properly, we have earned the right to return.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:49 pm

Sidney..........One thing I managed to confirm tonight (whilst you were slumming it at the cinema

) is that the accounts you linked on here recently via fb were those of VLL to y/e Mar'16.

So we can expect more shortly for BRFC 'adjusted' to Jun'16.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:52 pm

Claretforever wrote:Big difference between our clubs at this point. Without needing to go into the finer detail of how a business runs, and the ups and downs of cash flow, Rovers used money that they simply could not have afforded naturally, did not earn normally, and would not have been able to access via normal means, much less pay back. Totally different to Burnley, as despite debts (ups and downs for us), we've only ever been a couple of player sales from staving off the bank manager.

When Rovers were turning over £2-6m they were losing £6-8m per season. Rovers have LOST £223m(June2015) on their P&L during the Premier League era. To compare, Burnley have a POSITIVE £5.2m on our P&L for the same period.

We earned the right to be there and by running our business properly, we have earned the right to return.

We built ewood park and brockhall. They are included in the written off '100m' you keep banging on about, and account for the majority of it..

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:54 pm

Yeah. They have to submit them (June 2016) by 31st March, so we should see them within 10 days of that I think? I reckon Rovers must have hit £125-130m debt by now? It's getting towards Bolton proportions, and Venky's don't seem to want to write it off, or talk about it. You might be better off buying a half and half Accy scarf now, Saxo. That way you can claim you always swung both ways. LOL.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:54 pm

There was nothing exciting going on, here or on FB hence me slumming it in the cinema.
Missing Figures isn't a bad film to watch by the way and no it isn't about Rovers accounts

.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:56 pm

Saxoman wrote:We built ewood park and brockhall. They are included in the written off '100m' you keep banging on about, and account for the majority of it..

You were robbed if that's the case.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:58 pm

Saxoman wrote:We built ewood park and brockhall. They are included in the written off '100m' you keep banging on about, and account for the majority of it..

I don't "keep" bringing anything up?? I've barely posted with you and I've only ever mentioned it a couple of times on here, so I think you must be thinking of someone else? Brockhall was what, about £5-7m, and Ewood around £20m? So that's about £90m losses related purely to the team, if we totally ignore that the development of Ewood had it's part to play in enticing Shearer etc, and Brockhall was built because those star players didn't want to train on Pleasington fields.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:22 pm

Claretforever wrote:I don't "keep" bringing anything up?? I've barely posted with you and I've only ever mentioned it a couple of times on here, so I think you must be thinking of someone else? Brockhall was what, about £5-7m, and Ewood around £20m? So that's about £90m losses related purely to the team, if we totally ignore that the development of Ewood had it's part to play in enticing Shearer etc, and Brockhall was built because those star players didn't want to train on Pleasington fields.

I'm talking to Sidney..

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:24 pm

26m to build a top of the range stadium and training complex?

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:40 pm

Saxoman wrote:26m to build a top of the range stadium and training complex?

Where is this top of the range stadium you speak of??

Surely you can't be talking about Ewood with it's temporary stand

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:50 pm

Goobs wrote:Where is this top of the range stadium you speak of??

Surely you can't be talking about Ewood with it's temporary stand

Perspective. The emirates £300m, Wembley £800m.. Even allowing for inflation ewood was at least £50m and brockhall £20m..

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:56 pm

You are all missing the point.

Rovers have several revenue streams to keep themselves solvent.

1. Premier League TV rights
2. Four years parachute payments
3. Lucrative sponsorship deals
4. Considerable gate receipts
5. Multi million pound player sales
6. Championship TV rights

Oh ******** 2017/18 looks a bit shitty, I think we'll have to add back packing at Sainsbury's to the list.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:02 am

Goobs wrote:Where is this top of the range stadium you speak of??

Surely you can't be talking about Ewood with it's temporary stand

In fairness, Riverside aside (which is not much different to our Bob Lord), it is a decent stadium. The newer stands are far better than the ones we have, which are bloody awful. (Edit to say I wouldnt change the Bob Lord and CFS for any stand!)

Their training ground and youth facilities too until recently at least were / are far better than ours.

Its the mismanagement post Walker where things have gone wrong. He did buy their way to the top, but lets not pretend we wouldnt have loved the same from Kilby.

Since Walker left / died though they have been mismanaged. And a lot of this is because (and Rovers fans wont accept this) that the club have done what the fans wanted. Fired manager after manager, kept tickets at rock bottom while overpaying for has beens.

We have earnt what we have now. Through years of slow but progressive growth. Not forgetting a bit of luck. Rovers are falling back to where they were pre Walker. We are only a bad chairman or a few bad investments away from that.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:07 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:In fairness, Riverside aside (which is not much different to our Bob Lord), it is a decent stadium. The newer stands are far better than the ones we have, which are bloody awful. (Edit to say I wouldnt change the Bob Lord and CFS for any stand!)

Their training ground and youth facilities too until recently at least were / are far better than ours.

Its the mismanagement post Walker where things have gone wrong. He did buy their way to the top, but lets not pretend we wouldnt have loved the same from Kilby.

Since Walker left / died though they have been mismanaged. And a lot of this is because (and Rovers fans wont accept this) that the club have done what the fans wanted. Fired manager after manager, kept tickets at rock bottom while overpaying for has beens.

We have earnt what we have now. Through years of slow but progressive growth. Not forgetting a bit of luck. Rovers are falling back to where they were pre Walker. We are only a bad chairman or a few bad investments away from that.

I swear mate, if foreign investors start sniffing(they quite easily could), protest for your lives. Don't let it happen. For all your lot enjoying rovers troubles, I wouldn't wish it on ANY club.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:14 am

Saxoman wrote:I swear mate, if foreign investors start sniffing(they quite easily could), protest for your lives. Don't let it happen. For all your lot enjoying rovers troubles, I wouldn't wish it on ANY club.

I am not averse to foreign owners. There are as many success stories as there are failures. City, Chelsea, United, Leicester all point to that. And there are many English run clubs that have failed. It was Walkers family who sold your lot to the Venkys.

I dont think its a question of nationality. Look at Newcastle with Ashley. He has invested millions, Englishman.(Good chairman in my book but ultimately Newcastle have failed).

A lot of clubs fail because they do what the fans want. Freddie Shepherd said his biggest mistake as Newcastle Chairman was signing Michael Owen. He knew he was crocked but the Newcastle fans wanted him.

Most clubs are against their manager or their chairman or both. Burnley are lucky because I would say over 99 percent of us are happy with both.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:36 am

Saxoman wrote:Perspective. The emirates £300m, Wembley £800m.. Even allowing for inflation ewood was at least £50m and brockhall £20m..

Walker gave the steel to the club for the Ewood last I heard.

Have a little look at the link below.
They reckon £20 million on Ewood and about £5 million on Brockhall in the 90's money, so stop right there with the claims that most of that debt was from Ewood and Brockhall.
It was down to shoddy management of the club, the Trust tried to carry on with Jacks spending but couldn't do it anymore and sold up.

The sales of Bentley and Roque Santa Cruz would've paid for Ewood and Brockhall IF there was still monies owed.

https://notbottomline.wordpress.com/201 ... s-academy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:41 am

Saxoman wrote:Perspective. The emirates £300m, Wembley £800m.. Even allowing for inflation ewood was at least £50m and brockhall £20m..

The Ewood Park redevelopment (3 stands) cost £16.1m, and the training academy cost £4.75m. You also have the smaller, senior training centre about half a mile away (space didnt allow both to be on the same site), so in total the training ground is estimated to have cost around the £7m mark over a number of years, and that's only because of the cost of the land up there. £23m total for the two parts of your club.

Don't worry, being almost £50m out on your claim isnt as ridiculous as it sounds. Well, it is a bit.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:52 am

Its good how saxo tells everyone he is no financial expert then goes on to explain venkys and blackburns finances.