Fao Sidney1st - re Blackburn accounts

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:19 am

I can't believe that so many on here entertain the idea of engaging with him. It is akin to the playing Chess with a Pigeon metaphor, writ large.

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:48 pm

No nowt about the financial structure of BRFC, but if I was the owner.

I would have formed a holding company immediatly I purchased the club from Walker Trust, and transfer all BRFC assets (Ewood and Brockhall) into the holding company along with any funds from sell able assets i:e players etc.

Then when I could see that the BRFC income streams are shrinking, I would withdraw all financial support then liquidate BRFC

This would give the receivers the opportunity to sell the club on to any interested bodies. The Holding company would then rent or sell the ground back to any interested parties to recoup some of their losses.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:01 pm

Has anyone been to Brockhall recently? We think it's a top of the range facility as it was when it was built 25 years ago but have they maintained it?

Football pitches have come on leaps and bounds in the last few years and our recently laid pitches will be as good as any.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:15 pm

"I would have formed a holding company immediatly I purchased the club from Walker Trust, and transfer all BRFC assets (Ewood and Brockhall) into the holding company along with any funds from sell able assets i:e players etc.

Then when I could see that the BRFC income streams are shrinking, I would withdraw all financial support then liquidate BRFC

This would give the receivers the opportunity to sell the club on to any interested bodies. The Holding company would then rent or sell the ground back to any interested parties to recoup some of their losses."

You have to wonder if Venky's saw that kind of situation as a fall back position when they purchased BRFC and formed the holding company Venky's London Ltd. Income streams are shrinking right now with the loss of their parachute payments with only the profit on sale of Hanley, Duffy and Marshall left before they hit the buffers completely.

In terms of a decision to liquidate, the problem they have is that at the last count Venky's were owed £121.2 million by BRFC and they will certainly not be as accommodating as the Walker Trust who wrote off over £100 million prior to the sale to Venky's.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:20 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:Has anyone been to Brockhall recently? We think it's a top of the range facility as it was when it was built 25 years ago but have they maintained it?

Football pitches have come on leaps and bounds in the last few years and our recently laid pitches will be as good as any.

They haven't got any Desso pitches at Brockhall or Ewood.

Sausage · Post by **Sausage** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:29 pm

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!)

I'd grudgingly agree that three sides of Ewood Park are impressive and better quality than the James Hargreaves and Jimmy Mac stands but I can't agree that the Riverside is 'not much different' to the Bob Lord. The Bob Lord Stand has four columns to the Riverside's eight. The Bob Lord Stand is fully covered, the Riverside's first eight rows are uncovered. The Bob Lord has comfy wooden seats which are sculpted to accommodate fulsome bum cheeks; the Riverside has plastic seats sculpted to accommodate halfwits. Yes, the Riverside is bigger and I'm sure that incontrovertible fact will provide much solace when it finally sinks into Alum House Brook.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:02 pm

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

You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:03 pm

Saxoman wrote:You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.

Rovers accounts are there for everyone to see, the difference is a number of us have actually read them.

Similar to Brighton fans claiming they DON'T rent the Amex or their training facilites, yet the accounts a couple of years ago clearly showed about £1 million being paid out in rent to the stadiums holding company.

I suggest you go and have a little read of the accounts.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:05 pm

Jesus, Saxo how thick are you?

Its all in the accounts

(that doesn't mean you are thick because you can't read a balance sheet, it means that you are thick that you don't understand that someone who can will know Rovers finances.)

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:32 pm

Saxoman wrote:You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.

Its all there in the accounts, you are actually a lot thicker than I originally thought.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:40 pm

claretdom wrote:Its all there in the accounts, you are actually a lot thicker than I originally thought.

Is he "Thicker than a workhouse butty"

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:41 pm

Saxoman wrote:You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.

There's a Rovers fan on FB who's absolutely insistent that our board have 'lost' / 'stolen' £30million, there's allegedly a black hole in our finances from our first PL adventure.

I think he suffers from the same issue as you Saxo, can't read the financial figures that are in front of your face.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:43 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Is he "Thicker than a workhouse butty"

He is thicker than a shirehorse butt

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:47 pm

claretdom wrote:He is thicker than a shirehorse butt

Don't mention horses with Saxo around....

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:51 pm

Top Claret wrote:No nowt about the financial structure of BRFC, but if I was the owner.

I would have formed a holding company immediatly I purchased the club from Walker Trust, and transfer all BRFC assets (Ewood and Brockhall) into the holding company along with any funds from sell able assets i:e players etc.

Then when I could see that the BRFC income streams are shrinking, I would withdraw all financial support then liquidate BRFC

This would give the receivers the opportunity to sell the club on to any interested bodies. The Holding company would then rent or sell the ground back to any interested parties to recoup some of their losses.

If your BRFC subsidiary company wanted to borrow any money from third parties, it would have needed to use the ground as security anyway, via a guarantee from the holding company. No independent lender is going to lend a group of companies large amounts of unsecured debt, when the group has the security available.

The only source of low-interest zero-security funding is from the owner. Which is fine until the owner wants it back.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:58 pm

Top Claret wrote:No nowt about the financial structure of BRFC, but if I was the owner.

I would have formed a holding company immediatly I purchased the club from Walker Trust, and transfer all BRFC assets (Ewood and Brockhall) into the holding company along with any funds from sell able assets i:e players etc.

Then when I could see that the BRFC income streams are shrinking, I would withdraw all financial support then liquidate BRFC

This would give the receivers the opportunity to sell the club on to any interested bodies. The Holding company would then rent or sell the ground back to any interested parties to recoup some of their losses.

A distinct possibility of the directors getting in trouble there. Siphoning your assets into an affiliate, trading whilst insolvent and then liquidating a company is somewhat frowned upon.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:41 pm

aggi wrote:A distinct possibility of the directors getting in trouble there. Siphoning your assets into an affiliate, trading whilst insolvent and then liquidating a company is somewhat frowned upon.

You're right aggi. Best not to fart about, then.

Just liquidating Rovers would seem to be the best thing all round.
Immediately.

50 shades of Grey · Post by **50 shades of Grey** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:51 pm

'You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.'

That'd be the finances that are posted for all to see. Something to do with business transparency, I'm guessing.

Saxo: thicker than whale spu nk.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:27 pm

Sausage wrote:The Bob Lord has comfy wooden seats which are sculpted to accommodate fulsome bum cheeks; the Riverside has plastic seats sculpted to accommodate halfwits.

Brilliant

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:56 pm

Sausage wrote:I'd grudgingly agree that three sides of Ewood Park are impressive and better quality than the James Hargreaves and Jimmy Mac stands but I can't agree that the Riverside is 'not much different' to the Bob Lord. The Bob Lord Stand has four columns to the Riverside's eight. The Bob Lord Stand is fully covered, the Riverside's first eight rows are uncovered. The Bob Lord has comfy wooden seats which are sculpted to accommodate fulsome bum cheeks; the Riverside has plastic seats sculpted to accommodate halfwits. Yes, the Riverside is bigger and I'm sure that incontrovertible fact will provide much solace when it finally sinks into Alum House Brook.

The old Riverside had to be pulled down because it was deemed unsafe. The current one was built as a temporary measure with the intention of building one as near to the others as possible of crowds could justify a 35,000+ seater.

It's first 10 rows are the old terracing and the rest of the stand is metal, with a tiny, dark concourse at the back which is why people mainly walk along the front to the side refreshment kiosks.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:58 pm

Saxoman wrote:You all just make up whatever suits your argument. At least I admit some guesswork. Amazing how some are more privvy to our finances than rovers fans are.

So because your "guesswork" is totally laughable then we are making it up? The information is all available online. All of it. It's not a big secret.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:59 pm

Claretforever wrote:The old Riverside had to be pulled down because it was deemed unsafe. The current one was built as a temporary measure with the intention of building one as near to the others as possible of crowds could justify a 35,000+ seater.

It's first 10 rows are the old terracing and the rest of the stand is metal, with a tiny, dark concourse at the back which is why people mainly walk along the front to the side refreshment kiosks.

The plans for a new Walkersteel stand would have seen the capacity increased to 42,000 if they had gone ahead.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:00 pm

Claretforever wrote:So because your "guesswork" is totally laughable then we are making it up? The information is all available online. All of it. It's not a big secret.

Information isn't as readily available on his planet.

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

Goody1975 wrote:The plans for a new Walkersteel stand would have seen the capacity increased to 42,000 if they had gone ahead.

I'm not sure how that would be possible to be honest? The 3 newer stands have seating for 24,219 (officially) + corporate (assumption and not sure of figure).

So a stand at the Riverside, where space is at a premium, would have to hold 15-18,000, which is almost twice the size of the Jack Walker. I have a feeling the 42,000 was fairytale stuff?

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:31 pm

claretdom wrote:Its all there in the accounts, you are actually a lot thicker than I originally thought.

His wife said her lover is way thicker

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:34 pm

Are we talking girth here?

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:31 pm

First few years they used their European advertising budget to fund the club assuming incorrectly that it would be self funding thereafter and the breakthrough into the European market would generate more profit for Venkys. However they were actually hitched to a non descript almost toxic brand ie a struggling small northern provincial club. What they do now who knows however this was told to me by a good friend of a former director who left deadwood on principal.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:36 pm

Saxoman wrote:Are we talking girth here?

And length apparently !

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:26 pm

Interesting article by the Lancs telegraph - http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... an___106m/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently their wage bill last season was still £25 million and it's been halved since they got relegated......

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:06 pm

That's pretty much as we expected Sidney, with the three month adjustment from the VLL figures to Mar'16.

Still their Wages / Turnover ratio is a whopping 115% and when their Turnover halves next year they'll somehow have to reduce Wages again by 50%. Best of luck with that.

In these latest accounts I see the total employees on the payroll is a staggering 252!.......which is some 80 more than Burnley employ in the PL.

They're still miles away from running a sustainable business and now that the parachute payments have dried up they're Income will likely be sub £12m next year.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:21 pm

We got promoted first time with Dyche with a wage bill of about £15-16 million wasn't it?

The bonuses were high, but it clearly paid off.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:38 pm

"We got promoted first time with Dyche with a wage bill of about £15-16 million wasn't it?

The bonuses were high, but it clearly paid off."

Yes, our Wage bill for '13/'14 was £15.5m, although to be fair players and staff shared a £6.1m promotion bonus.

Wages here are very much incentive driven and Blackburn could learn a massive lesson from us on that.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Clearly they aren't learning anything if it's taken them 4-5 years to only halve their wage bill.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:41 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Clearly they aren't learning anything if it's taken them 4-5 years to only halve their wage bill.

Jim White and his comments last week were laughable, of course the Venky's have pocketed the £35 Million they got from player sales, well erm except for the fact they went towards keeping the club out of another transfer embargo and just about in a fit enough state to keep trading you complete divot.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:48 pm

There's a Rovers fan on fb who's insisting the FA should investigate Venkys / Rovers for criminal activities.

Apparently losing money is a criminal activity...

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:54 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Apparently losing money is a criminal activity...

Losing money is something they've been doing most of the time since 1992 (obviously they did prior to that), didn't think the Venky's were involved when the Premier League started.

Enola Gay · Post by **Enola Gay** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:11 pm

I love it when these figures come out and the Blackburn fans en masse start losing their sh*t about how unfair it is that this has happened to them.

Once it became clear the Walker Trust weren't going to throw the same stupid amounts of money at the club as Walker himself had done, the air around Ewood turned thick with rattles thrown out of prams and the pavements surrounding it knee-deep in spat dummies. You could barely open Twitter, Facebook or the Lancashire Telegraph letters page without the Shadsworth massive demanding that if the Trust weren't prepared to fund the club to keep them in their *snigger* 'rightful place' and *chortle* 'where they belong', they should damned well sell up to someone else who would.

Thing is, when you remind them of this and ask how it's working out for them, they get ever so annoyed...

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:34 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Is he "Thicker than a workhouse butty"

Thicker than a whale omelette!

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:48 pm

Here you go chaps. Only lost £1.5m because of the £14.2m profit on player sales. But for that they would have lost £15.7m.

Allotment of shares in December 2015 which keeps their net debt to around £107m?

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:35 pm

Cheers for that Claretforever.

A couple of observations..........Turnover for the year to Jun'16 of £22m included the final parachute payment of £13.2m and only £8m in matchday receipts. So it's clear that in the next set of accounts when they are solely reliant on matchday plus solidarity payment their Income will be around the £12m mark with Wages probably no less than £16m.

The profit on sale of assets for last year at £14m (Rhodes and Gestede) will be replaced by say £8m (Hanley and Duffy) and then only Marshall at say £2m in the current year.

The trend is therefore obvious to see with massive losses the order of the day from this financial year onwards. With no funds available to Mowbray from Venky's the downward spiral can only continue. In fact it's gathering pace like an unstoppable train to Pune.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:55 am

Royboyclaret wrote: In these latest accounts I see the total employees on the payroll is a staggering 252!.......which is some 80 more than Burnley employ in the PL.

They're still miles away from running a sustainable business and now that the parachute payments have dried up they're Income will likely be sub £12m next year.

Not 100% sure on accuracy but this just reminded me of something I heard from a friend who is generally quite in the know.

He mentioned how Burnley didnt want to go straight for Cat 1 with their academy (even with all the new facilities) as there are rules/regulations for Cat 1 academies which mean every age group needs dedicated staff such as a physio etc...

He said because of this and the amount of staff that'd be needed to be drafted in was one of the reasons Burnley were not looking to Cat1 status until they were (even) more established and settled financially.

This could be the cause of the high staff numbers down the road with all the extra mandatory requirements at the academy level.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:23 am

bfccrazy wrote:Not 100% sure on accuracy but this just reminded me of something I heard from a friend who is generally quite in the know.

He mentioned how Burnley didnt want to go straight for Cat 1 with their academy (even with all the new facilities) as there are rules/regulations for Cat 1 academies which mean every age group needs dedicated staff such as a physio etc...

He said because of this and the amount of staff that'd be needed to be drafted in was one of the reasons Burnley were not looking to Cat1 status until they were (even) more established and settled financially.

This could be the cause of the high staff numbers down the road with all the extra mandatory requirements at the academy level.

I suspect that has a lot to do with it, because to go to Cat 1 would likely cost us a further £2m per year. That doesn't seem a lot, but if we went straight back down, and we'd made say a 5 year commitment to staff and young kids, then it would hurt us financially in years 3-5 after relegation.

Get more established, putting more money in the bank, plus securing that extra parachute commitment from a third year, and it becomes more appealing to do. Slowly, slowly....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:31 am

Seems the only way to make a Category academy 1 work in the championship (assuming the club is run as a business) is that you "ring fence" the profits made by selling the players produced by it.

£2 million of sales a year though? Is that even achievable realistically, even for a Category 1 club?

Plus you'd also have to raise more to help for the general running costs of the club.

Basically, seems something that a championship club probably can't afford.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:33 am

Don't forget they're only paying for a low end Cat 1 academy status.

I'd hate to think what extra costs are involved for a top end Cat 1 academy.

They sold Hanley for £5 million, so if that money was ring fenced then that would pay for the academy fees for 2 & a bit years.

I don't know if that £2 million includes academy wages and running costs.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:43 am

Yeah, because the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea et al all spend FAR more than rovers on their academies.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:44 am

Balance Sheet

NOTES - See Match Day income

Looking at that, and considering around £5m TV solidarity payments this year, they should turnover around £13m? No wonder they've had to sell Hanley, Duffy and Marshall. They clearly don't want to support Rovers any more than they have to do.

Creditors

Increase in bank overdraft, which I suspect is due to interest? Also still owe £2.5m in transfer fees it seems, or something relegated to sales?